RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-00724
		INDEX CODE:  110.02, 128.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED: NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  12 SEP 2007

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her late husband’s date of separation be changed to 31 Dec 03, rather than 28 May 04, and include severance pay and moving expenses.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Her late husband’s discharge was needlessly delayed until after 31 Dec 03 at which point the regulations governing the Weight and Body Fat Management Program (WBFMP) changed resulting in a loss of severance pay and moving expenses.

In support of the request, applicant submitted a copy of the deceased military member’s death certificate; letter to his senator; congressional response and other supporting documents.

The applicant's submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 10 Jun 91 for a period of four years with a rank of airman first class.  He was progressively promoted to the rank of staff sergeant with an effective date and date of rank of 1 Dec 98.  On 4 May 99, he reenlisted for a period of six years in the grade of staff sergeant.  

On 21 Nov 03, applicant acknowledged receipt of a referral airman performance report for the period of 2 Dec 02 – 20 Nov 03.  The report contained comments and ratings that made the report a referral; specifically, the ratings in Sec. III, Item 3, “fails to meet minimum standards,” and the comments in Sec. V, “unable to maintain body fat standards,” caused the report to be a referral report.  Applicant elected not to submit a rebuttal.

On 28 May 04, applicant was honorably discharged under the provisions of AFI 36-3208 with a reason of miscellaneous/general reasons.  He was credited with 12 years, 11 months, and 19 days of active duty service.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial.  They found the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  Additionally, that the discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority.  They also noted the applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.

HQ AFPC/DPPRS complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/JA recommended denial, stating, in part, they found no error or injustice in the processing of the member’s separation and, therefore, no entitlement to separation pay or additional moving expenses.

They found no evidence of any improper motive on the part of the squadron in waiting until the member returned from leave to serve the discharge package.  The squadron properly processed and prepared the discharge package, but were simply prohibited from executing the discharge once the new Air Force Fitness program took effect on 1 Jan 04.

Applicant questions whether the squadron timely processed the discharge package under the WBFMP.  Implicit in her claim is an allegation that the squadron intentionally delayed completing and/or serving the discharge package to prevent the member from obtaining any monetary benefits under that type of discharge.  There is no evidence to support such speculation, and her unsupported arguments do not overcome the strong, but regrettable, presumption that Air Force officials properly perform their duties.

The evidence supports the presumption that the circumstances just did not work out to enable the squadron to more quickly serve the member before the new Air Force Fitness Program made the WBFMP obsolete.  They could not discern any error or injustice in the processing of the applicant’s husband’s discharge.  The member ultimately chose to leave the Air Force voluntarily in 2004—with all the attendant rules regarding pay and entitlements.

HQ AFPC/JA complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In the applicant response, she reiterates her original contentions and cites specific events surrounding the circumstances leading to her husband’s discharge and subsequent death.

Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit F.

___________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice warranting a change in the narrative reason for separation and entitlement to separation pay and moving expenses.  We considered the applicant’s stated request; however, after careful review of the available records, it appears the deceased military member was voluntarily discharged on 28 May 04, after 12 years, 11 months, and 19 days of active duty service.  The discharge appears to be in compliance with the governing directives and we find no evidence to indicate that his separation from the Air Force was inappropriate or that the applicant was not afforded all the rights to which entitled at the time of discharge.  Nevertheless, the majority of the Board believes that there may have been mitigating circumstances that affected the applicant’s prior discharge processing while in the WBFMP.  In this regard, it appears that it took an inordinate amount of time to process the applicant’s discharge under the WBFMP.  Therefore, the majority of the Board is of the opinion that had the prior discharge action been processed in a timely manner, the deceased military member would have been discharged with entitlement to separation pay and moving expenses.  In view of the above, the majority of the Board recommends that the narrative reason for separation and the corresponding separation code be changed to reflect “Weight Control Failure, with one - half separation pay,” including entitlement to moving expenses.  

___________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that on 28 May 2004, he was honorably discharged under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, by reason of (Weight Control Failure), with entitlement to one-half separation pay, and a corresponding Separation Program Designator (SPD) code of “GCR,” and in accordance with the provisions of the Joint Federal Travel Regulations (JFTR), Paragraph U5012-I, competent authority determined that his entitlement to moving expenses was extended. 

___________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2006-00724 in Executive Session on 26 September 2006, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

By a majority vote, the Board voted to grant the request.  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX voted to grant entitlement to moving expenses; however, he voted to deny the request to change the DOS and severance pay and did not desire to submit a minority report.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 8 Dec 05, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 7 Jun 06.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/JA, dated 5 Jul 06.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Jul 06.
	Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 21 Jun 06.

                                   

AFBCMR BC-2006-00724

MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

	Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:

	The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that on 28 May 2004, he was honorably discharged under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, by reason of (Weight Control Failure), with entitlement to one-half separation pay, and a corresponding Separation Program Designator (SPD) code of “GCR,” and in accordance with the provisions of the Joint Federal Travel Regulations (JFTR), Paragraph U5012-I, competent authority determined that his entitlement to moving expenses was extended.