RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-02093 INDEX CODE:	128.05

COUNSEL:	NONE HEARING DESIRED:	NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The following corrections be made to his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty:

1.	His Separation Program Designator (SPD) code of “KDB” and Narrative Reason for Separation of “Hardship” be changed.

2.	His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of “3A” be changed.
3.	Item 11, Primary Specialty, be changed to reflect three years, one month, and two days, the correct time in service as stated in Item 12, Record of Service.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His separation from the Air Force was voluntary due to a breach of contract by the Air Force, and was not under any hardship conditions. His RE code of “3A” does not allow for him to reenter any branch of the service.

He is currently seeking a commission in the United States military and his DD Form 214 has become a major setback in obtaining this goal.

In support of his request, the applicant provided a personal statement and his DD Form 214.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Air Force on 30 May 02 into an Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) of 1A0X1 (In-flight Refueling Apprentice). The applicant passed two color vision tests; the first at the Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS) in Sacramento, CA, and a second test at Lackland AFB, TX during basic training. Then after over a year and a half of specialized training, he failed the pseudoisochromatic plate (PIP) color vision test conducted at his first permanent duty station,

McGuire AFB, resulting in the denial of flight status. The applicant was paid an Initial Enlistment Bonus (IEB) for his AFSC of 1A0X1 on 16 Apr 03. His flying status was revoked and he was reclassified into AFSC 2T1X1 (Vehicle Operations Apprentice) on
4 Feb 04. In Dec 04, another PIP test was conducted and again the applicant failed the test. A waiver request was then submitted to HQ Air Mobility Command (AMC) and the applicant was advised the waiver was approved; however, the approval of the waiver was apparently in error and was subsequently revoked.  On
23 Mar 05, the applicant applied for a miscellaneous separation to be effective 1 Jul 05.

In May 05, the applicant sought relief from the AFBCMR to have the recoupment of the unused portion of his IEB be waived. The member originally applied for separation under miscellaneous provisions which required the recoupment of his IEB. His record was corrected to show he was separated for “Hardship.”

An AF Form IMT 31, Airman’s Request for Early Separation/Separation Based on Change in Service Obligation, dated 23 Mar 05, located in his master personnel record reflects the applicant requested a hardship discharge, and his unit commander approved his request.

The applicant stated repayment of the bonus would place a financial burden on his family. When applicant’s hardship waiver was approved his SPD code changed from miscellaneous (MND) to hardship (KDB). The change to hardship separation did not require recoupment of the applicant’s IEB; however, it did terminate his Military Service Obligation (MSO).

HQ AFPC/DPSIDC has informed the applicant the purpose of Item 11, on the DD Form 214 is to record all AFSCs in which the applicant performed duties for one year or more, including the years and months; it is not intended to represent all of his active military service.  DPSIDC will correct the applicant’s DD Form
214 to reflect this change.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial of the applicant’s request to change his SPD code and narrative reason for separation. DPSOS states the documentation on file in the master personnel records was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction.

The complete DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit B.
HQ AFPC/DPSOA recommends applicant’s RE code be changed to “4A.” DPSOA states the applicant’s RE code should have been changed to “4A”- Separated for hardship or dependency reasons. RE “4A” also makes the applicant ineligible for reenlistment in the Air Force, however, this code prevented him from paying back the signing bonus.

The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 5 Dec 08, a copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. To date, a response has not been received.

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1.	The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

2.	The application was timely filed.
3.	Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as  the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. We note applicant’s contention that his separation was voluntary, due to a breach of contract; however, evidence presented indicates he requested separation due to a family hardship. As indicated the applicant’s RE code of 3A is in error and we have been advised by the Air Force Personnel Center the code will be administratively corrected to reflect 4A, which is the correct code for a hardship discharge. We agree, and see no reason to change his RE code to any other code. Also, Item 11 on the DD Form 214 was also found to be in error and will be administratively corrected. Aside from the administrative corrections, we find no evidence to support favorable consideration of this case. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with this application.

The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2008-02093 in Executive Session on 25 February 2009, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

Panel Chair 
Member
Member
The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number BC-2008-02093 was considered:

Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 1 May 08, w/atchs. Exhibit B.	Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 3 Nov 08.
Exhibit C.	Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 5 Nov 08. Exhibit D.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Dec 08.