RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-01082

   						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her Separation Program Designator (SPD) code “LGH” (Non-Retention on Active Duty) on her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be changed to match the SPD code of “LBK” on her separation orders.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Her DD Form 214 contains the wrong SPD code.  Her separation orders reflect a SPD code of LBK, while her DD Form 214 reflects an SPD code of LGH.  This mismatch prevented her from receiving full separation pay instead of the half separation pay received.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 30 Aug 01.

On 11 Feb 13, the applicant received an Article 15 because on divers occasions between on or about 1 Jan 12 and 29 Oct 12 she, as a married women, had sexual intercourse with a Senior Master Sergeant who was not her husband, and with intent to deceive lied while making an official statement during a Security Forces investigation.  For this she was reduced to the grade of Senior Airman (SrA), forfeited pay, and was reprimanded.  

On 8 Mar 13, applicant’s commander completed AF IMT 418, Selective Reenlistment Program Consideration, not selecting her for reenlistment under the Fiscal Year 2013 (FY13) Date of Separation (DOS) Rollback Program, indicating with her demotion the applicant had reached her high year of tenure and it was in the best interest of the Air Force to separate her under DOS rollback.   

On 17 Apr 13, the applicant received Special Order AG-072893 directing her release from active duty with an SPD code of “LBK.”

On 31 May 13, the applicant was furnished an honorable discharge with an SPD code of “LGH” and was credited with 11 years, 9 months, and 1 day of active service.   

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memoranda prepared by the Air Forces offices of primary responsibility (OPRs), which are attached at Exhibits C and F.    

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice.  In accordance with the Secretary of the Air Force (SECAF) memorandum dated 31 Jan 13, The Fiscal Year 2013 (FY13) Force Management Program, “Airmen with 6 or more years of active service and less than 20 years of active service not serving in their initial term of enlistment are authorized one-half separation pay contingent upon agreeing to serve in the individual ready reserves for a period of not less than three years.”  The record shows the applicant had more than 6 years but less than 20 years of service and was not in her initial enlistment at the time of the 2013 DOS Rollback Program, therefore, the applicant was authorized to receive half separation pay. 

The applicant’s contention code “LBK” gives authorization for full separation pay is incorrect.  The SPD code of LBK as reflected on the applicant’s separation orders was correct at the time the orders were produced.  It was a temporary code 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 Form 214s produced under this guidance.  Once code “LGH” was in the database and capable of being produced on the automated DD Form 214, it replaced code “LBK” as the code to use for half separation pay.  As a result, the separation orders do not reflect the same code as the DD Form 214, even though they both direct payment of half separation pay.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In further support of her request, the applicant submitted a personal statement refuting the points of the DPSOR advisory and contending the Office of the Deputy Director of Military Compensation ((DASD(MPP/Comp)) denied the Air Force the authority to use SPD code “LBK,” after 1 Apr 13 without paying full separation pay for this code.  Her separation orders were issued after 1 Apr 13 and directed use of SPD code “LBK.”  Further, she was separated for having completed her required period of service, which warrants use of SPD code “LBK,” and not for being “not retained on active duty,” which would have warranted use of SPD code “LGH.”  The decision made at AFPC at the level of a Master Sergeatn (MSgt) to use SPD code “LGH,” on her DD Form 214 was done without authority, and also requires recoupment of bonuses when the SECAF’s guidance for the FY13 DOS Rollback Program directed no bonus recoupment.  She provided copies of memos and email documents relevant to the temporary use of SPD codes. (Exhibit E) 

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DP2STM-SEP recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice.  The applicant submitted a rebuttal to the Air Force evaluation in which she contends she should receive full separation pay based on being separated with the SPD code of “LBK” that was initially placed on her separation orders.  She further contends AFPC took inappropriate action by changing her SPD code to reflect “LGH” on her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty and her code should be changed back to “LBK” so she can receive full separation pay.  Her assertion AFPC arbitrarily changed SPD codes without authority is incorrect.  In the FY13 Force Management Program approval memorandum, dated 31 Jan 13, the SECAF specifically directed members separating under the Enlisted DOS Rollback Program would be authorized one-half rate separation pay if they met eligibility critera.  However, SPD codes “JBK/LBK” had to be used temporarily during the initial stages of the FY13 DOS Rollback Program, which authorized one-half separation pay.  Upon expiration of authority to use JBK/LBK for this purpose, the codes reverted back to a full separation pay entitlement.  AFPC then needed to use different codes to reflect the appropriate entitlement under the FY13 DOS Rollback Program.  Therefore, SPD codes “JGH/LGH” were established for use as the alternative codes.  Not only would “JGH/LGH” reflect the more accurate narrative reason for separation, “non retention on active duty,” they would properly continue the one-half separation pay entitlement that was authorized under this program.  Since there was no change to the entitlement authorized by the SECAF, AFPC ensured DD Form 214s reflected the change from “JBK/LBK” to “JGH/LGH” versus preparing thousands of amendments to separation orders.  Again, changing the SPD codes to reflect the SECAF’s intent for the FY13 Rollback Program became necessary once the original codes temporarily used for that purpose were set to expire and revert to a different entitlement after the expiration date.  Therefore, the SPD code authorizing the applicant to receive one-half separation pay was consistent with procedural and substantive requirements of the PSDM based on directives established by the SECAF.  To grant relief would be contrary to the criteria established by the SECAF for the FY13 DOS Rollback Program.  

A complete copy of the AFPC/DP2STM-SEP evaluation is at Exhibit F.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In further support of her request, the applicant submitted an second rebuttal, addressing the AFPC/DP2STM-SEP advisory.  She cites the statement in the advisory which says “The SPD code of LBK as reflected on the applicant’s separation orders was correct at the time the orders were produced,” and contends that statement is not true.  Her speration orders were created on 17 Apr 13 after the cut-off of 31 Mar 13 for use of temporary separation codes “JBK/LBK” for half-separation pay.  In addition, she reiterates that the approval to change her SPD code to LGH on her DD Form 214 was never properly requested from the SECAF or OSD(P&R).  Her “LGH” SPD code means “non-retention of active duty,” while SPD code “LBK” means completion of required service.”  The Air Force determined she had completed all of her obligated service.  Further, after 1 Apr 13, the SPD codes “JBK/LBK” reverted to full separation pay with no bonus recoupment.  When AFPC changed the SPD code on her DD Form 214 to “LGH” they placed her in a category of receiving half separation pay, with authorized bonus recoupment.  All similarly situated individual had the right to believe the Air Force would “play by the rules.” (Exhibit H)  

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 an error or injustice.  We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission, to include her rebuttal responses to the advisory opinions, in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the offices of personal responsibility (OPRs) and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice.  While the Board acknowledges clerical error in her separation paperwork, such as the applicant’s separation orders not being issued until after the 31 May 15 cut off date for use of SPD code “LBK,” she was still clearly selected for separation under the FY13 DOS Rollback Program, which requires she be separated with half separation pay.  Clerical error does not automatically entitle a member to a benefit to which they were not otherwise entitled, thus, the fact she is only entitled to one-half separation pay will not change.  In fact, correcting the record by amending her separation paperwork so it strictly conforms to the DoD and SECAF guidance for the FY13 DOS Rollback Program would not result in the applicant gaining the full separation pay she is seeking, only confirm her authorization to  one-half separation pay.  The applicant has been treated the same as the other similarly situated members who were selected for separation under the FY13 DOS Rollback Program, and has failed to establish the existence of an injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, 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 members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-01082 in Executive Session on 3 Nov 15 and 19 May 16, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 Dec 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 3 Apr 15, w/atch.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Jun 15.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 29 Jun 15, w/atchs.
	Exhibit F.  Memorandum, AFPC/DP2STM-SEP, dated 15 Mar 16.
	Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 29 Mar 16.  
	Exhibit H.  Letter, Applicant, dated 11 Apr 16, w/atchs.