RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-00011 

 INDEX CODE: 110.00 

 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

The separation code (SPD) of MGQ (Intradepartmental Transfer) on 
his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active 
Duty be changed to allow him to receive medical benefits. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He was informed by numerous Air Force agencies that he should be 
covered by TRICARE for six months following his separation. 

 

In support of the appeal, the applicant submits a copy of his DD 
Form 214. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 30 March 2004 
and was progressively promoted to the grade of senior aviator 
(E-4), having assumed that grade effective and with a date of 
rank of 14 March 2006. On 23 July 2007, he signed an AF IMT 
1288, Application for Ready Reserve Assignment, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-3205, PALACE CHASE Program. The applicant 
was released from active duty effective 10 October 2007, with an 
honorable characterization of service, a SPD code of MGQ. He 
served 3 years, 6 months, and 11 days on active duty. Those 
members separating under PALACE CHASE are not authorized Tricare 
benefits. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

 

  
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial. DPSOS states the SPD code of MGQ 
is given to those members separating under PALACE CHASE without 
completing the required Military Service Obligation of eight 
years. Those members separated under PALACE CHASE are not 
authorized any Tricare benefits 

 

The complete DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

AFPC/DPSIZ recommends denial. DPSIZ states no authority exists 
to change an airman SPD code for the sole purpose of providing 
180-days of medical benefits and 2-years of shopping privileges. 
The MGQ SPD code does not warrant Transitional Assistance Program 
(TAP) benefits within the Defense Enrollment Eligibility 
Reporting System (DEERS) for purposes of receiving an 
identification card with benefits and privileges. No error or 
injustice has occurred. To adjust an airman’s SPD code would not 
be consistent with the intent of the law and would create an 
unwarranted precedent. 

 

The complete DPSIZ evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

On 26 February 2010, copies of the Air Force evaluations were 
forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 
30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this 
office (Exhibit E). 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

 

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

 

2. The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the 
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file. 

 

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 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 or injustice. Therefore, in the 
absence of evidence to the contrary, we fund no 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 AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2010-00011 in Executive Session on 20 April 2010, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 

 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 28 Oct 09, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 29 Jan 10. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSIZ, dated 1 Feb 10 

 Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Feb 10. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair