RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00769 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Separation Program Designator (SPD) Code on his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty be changed from LGH which denotes “Non-Retention on Active Duty” to LBK which denotes “Expiration of Term of Service.” APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He is not seeking any monetary compensation as he received one half separation pay under SPD code LBK as was instructed in the DOS rollback PSDM. His only issue is that his DD 214 is incorrect in stating that his SPD is LGH. The narrative of the LGH SPD code is more negatively impacting than the appropriate SPD code of LBK. He was separated under the Date of Separation (DOS) rollback program and per Personnel Services Delivery Memorandum (PSDM) 13- 14; the SPD code should be LBK. His separation orders also show “LBK” as the separation code. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 20 Apr 00 the applicant entered the Regular Air Force. His AF Form 418, Selective Reenlistment Program (SRP) Consideration for Airmen in the Regular Air Force/Air Force Reserve, reflects he had an established Unfavorable Information File (UIF) and was on the Control Roster (CR). He was derelict in the performance of his duties as Non-Commissioned Officer In Charge (NCOIC) of the base Honor Guard and was therefore removed from the position and returned to duty in his career field and was assigned to 22 LRS. Soon after returning to 22 LRS, he wrongfully had sexual intercourse with two women in the unit, even though he was married. This was detrimental to the unit’s morale and discipline due to his position in Quality Assurance. He proved he could not be trusted to perform as an effective member of the United States Air Force and lacked the Air Force Core Values. His AF Form 100, Request and Authorization for Separation dated 28 May 13, reflects his SPD Code as LBK. According to the applicant’s DD Form 214, issued in conjunction with his 31 May 13 separation, the applicant received an honorable discharge with a narrative reason for separation of “Non-Retention on Active Duty” with the corresponding SPD code of LGH. He was credited with 13 years, 1 month and 11 days of active service. PSDM 13-14, dated 13 Feb 13, states that airmen separated under the DOS Rollback Program are separated IAW AFI 36-3208, paragraphs 2.2 (Completion of Required Active Service) and 2.17 (Separation Authorized by HQ USAF). It also states airmen will be separated with Separation Program Designation (SPD) code JBK (less than 6 years of active service) or LBK (more than 6 years of active service). AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial. The SPD Code “LGH” is the correct code as listed on the applicant’s DD Form 214. On 29 Mar 13, the applicant’s commander completed the AF Form 418, and decided not to select the applicant for reenlistment under the 2013 DOS rollback program. His commander indicated the applicant had three LORs, an established UIF and was on the CR. Based on the non- recommendation for retention, the applicant was released from active duty and given an honorable discharge characterization of service. The SPD code “LBK” was a temporary code the HQ USAF authorized to reflect members receiving one half separation pay until SPD code “LGH” could be updated into the military personnel database and reflected on all automated DD Forms 214 produced under this guidance therefore; it is correct on the applicant’s separation orders. Once “LGH” was in the database and capable of being produced on the automated DD Forms 214, it replaced code “LBK” to represent half separation pay. As a result, the separation orders do not reflect the same code as the DD Form 214 even though both codes mean the same under this guidance. An administrative correction could be made to the separation orders however; it does not affect the circumstances surrounding the applicant’s discharge. Therefore, the SPD code, narrative reason for separation and character of service are correct and in accordance with Air Force instructions. The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant responded by stating that the office of primary responsibility did not reference any letter, instruction or publication as evidence that the LBK was a temporary code. They state that both codes can be used to represent receiving half separation pay. He therefore asks that his SPD code be changed to reflect what he was told it would be, as stated in the PSDM. The PSDM does not mention LBK is a temporary code and he believes it is a permanent code available for use. The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit D. 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 note the applicant’s narrative reason for separation conflicts with the information contained in the PSDM 13-14 dated 13 Feb 13. However, the AF Form 418, dated 29 Mar 13 reflects the commander did not recommend him for retention and the applicant has not provided any evidence to show that the AF Form 418 was prepared in error. Therefore, it is our opinion that the narrative reason for separation and the corresponding SPD code of LGH, accurately describes the circumstances surround the applicant’s separation from the Air Force. As such, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an injustice. In the absence of evidence the applicant was treated differently than others similar situated, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with this application. The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-00769 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 19 Feb 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 13 Nov 14. Exhibit D. Applicant’s Response, dated 2 Jan 15.