RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-05671 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, item 26, Separation Code, be amended to reflect MCC (Reduction in Force) rather than MGQ (Intradepartmental Transfer). APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was separated due to Force Shaping/Reduction-in-Force (RIF) which gave him the option to transfer to the Air Force Reserve, hence the intradepartmental transfer that resulted. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant enlisted in the Air Force Reserve on 3 July 2004. The applicant was released from active duty on 3 February 2006 and transferred to the Air Force Reserve. He served 1 year, 7 months and 1 day on active duty. He received a separation code of MGQ (Intradepartmental Transfer). AIR FORCE EVALUATION: ARPC/DPAA recommends denial. DPAA states the memorandum, signed by USAF Chief of Staff (attached), is dated four months after the applicant separated from active duty and does not state that PBD720 has been implemented. Upon review of the applicant’s record, AF 475, Education/Training Report, dated 29 November 2006, states that he was eliminated from Joint Primary Pilot Training (JPPT). Additionally, comments in the Air Force Recruiting Information Support System-Reserve (AFRISS-R) entered by the applicant’s AF Reserve recruiter on 28 November 2005 reiterate that he was eliminated from JPPT and state that he “opted to go into the AF Reserve”. If the Board agrees with their recommendation, no further administrative action is necessary and the applicant’s record reflects correctly. However, if the decision is to grant the relief sought, the following actions should be taken: a. Change block 26 of his DD 214 to reflect “MCC.” b. Change block 28 to reflect “Reduction in Force.” c. AFPC Separations should consider whether the applicant is authorized additional entitlements if his separation will be re- classified as Reduction in Force. The complete ARPC/DPAA evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit B. AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial. DPSOR states the applicant was eliminated from T-6 Joint Primary Pilot Training (JPPT) for airsickness and anxiety leading to Manifestation of Apprehension. The applicant applied for release from active duty so that he could go Palace Front to the Air Force Reserve. The applicant submitted his documentation to his Reserve recruiter for processing of his transfer to the Air Force Reserve. The separations authority approved the applicant's release from active duty and directed an honorable discharge and transfer to the Air Force Reserve. Documentation provided by HQ ARPC/DPAA shows that the applicant went to a recruiter and stated his desire to enter the Air Force Reserve after being eliminated from JPPT for airsickness and anxiety. Once the applicant found a reserve position and submitted his documents to his reserve recruiter, he was processed for release from active duty. Therefore, the applicant's SPD code and narrative reason for separation for “intradepartmental transfer” are correct as listed on the DD Form 214. The applicant contends that he was affected by PBD 720/Force Shaping, however, a signed memorandum, from the Chief of Staff, Air Force (CSAF), dated 7 June 2006, which discussed possible implementation of this initiative is dated four months after the applicant's effective date of separation. It is our contention that the applicant was not affected by the initiative and separated under a regular PALACE FRONT program. The applicant's separation to include the SPD code, narrative reason for separation, and character of service was processed in accordance with the discharge instruction and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. The applicant did not provide any evidence of an error or injustice regarding his SPD code or narrative reason for separation. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 20 October 2014, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant for review and response 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. After a thorough review of the evidence of record, it is our opinion that given the circumstances surrounding his separation from the Air Force, the narrative reason for separation and corresponding SPD code assigned were proper and in compliance with the appropriate instructions. In addition, the applicant has not provided any evidence which would lead us to believe otherwise. Therefore, we agree with 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. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of an 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-2013-05671 in Executive Session on 4 December 2014, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 5 December 2013, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Letter, ARPC/DPAA, dated 5 February 2014, w/atchs. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 15 September 2014. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 October 2014.