RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2016-02205 

						COUNSEL:  
	
						HEARING DESIRED:  NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Separation Program Designator (SPD) code be change to reflect he separated under FY14 PALACE CHASE.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His recruiter neglected to write “FY14 PALACE CHASE” in the remarks section of his PALACE CHASE application, and he was discharged under normal PALACE CHASE, incurring a debt for portions of unearned selective reenlistment bonus (SRB).  He submitted a remissions package to SAF/RB, and was notified on 27 Apr 16, via myPers, that he could apply for a correction to his records, which would change his SPD code and relieve him of the debt.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 9 Aug 00.

The applicant is currently serving as a Master Sergeant in the Air Force Reserve, with an Expiration of Term of Service (ETS) of 10 Sep 20.

DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, with a 10 Jan 14 separation date, Item 26, Separation Code, reflects KGQ.  This is the code used for Intradepartmental Transfer (service member initiated discharge allowed by established directive when transferring from one Service component status to another in the same Service), and is also the appropriate SPD code used for PALACE CHASE.

AF Form 100, Request and Authorization for Separation, dated 3 Dec 13, Item 35, Continuation of Dependents and Remarks (reverse of form), reflects: “07. This is a PALACE CHASE separation, report to your gaining unit.  The recruiter ID is: RAQV.” 

A review of the Automated Records Management System (ARMS) confirms AF Form 2631, PALACE CHASE Statement of Understanding, dated 2 Oct 13, is a matter of record. 

The results of the applicant’s request for remission are as follows:

a.  Remission case, RC-2015-00167, requested remission of indebtedness of $16,872.50, resulting from the erroneous collection of a SRB and errors made in his pay records from 11 Jan 14 thru 30 Mar 14, was denied.

b.  Remission appeal, RC-2016-00072, partial grant by remitting $5,007.50 of the debt; decrease of monthly collection rate from $1,776.20 to $166.88 until the remaining debt is paid.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility, which is attached at Exhibit C.  

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DP2STM recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice.  

The applicant applied for the Voluntary PALACE CHASE separation on 10 Oct 13 and was approved for a date of separation effective 10 Jan 14.  According to the PALACE CHASE application there was no annotation or mention that this separation was for the FY14 Enlisted Voluntary Force Management Program dated 16 Jul 13.  After further investigation it was concluded that the applicants Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) 3E871 was not identified as one of the AFSC’s recognized by the Air Force development program to meet Congressionally-mandated end strength requirements.  At the time of the member’s application submission and separation approval the member did not qualify for Separation under the FY14 Enlisted Voluntary Force Management Program dated 16 July 2013.  The applicant’s request to change and include the words “FY14 PALACE CHASE” written into the verbiage of his PALACE CHASE Separation application, and a correction to the SPD code to reflect a FY14 Force Management Separation eligibility should be denied.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DP2STM evaluation is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 13 Dec 16 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D).  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.

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 in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of 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-2016-02205 in Executive Session on 7 Nov 17 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2016-02205 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 May 16, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Excerpts from Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DP2STM, undated.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 13 Dec 16.
	
Pursuant to paragraph 1 of AFI 36-2603 (Title 32 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 865.1), it is certified that a quorum was present at the Board's review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board's proceedings in the above entitled matter.