RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01525 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Narrative Reason for Separation be corrected to reflect Convenience of Government or Reduction in Force, instead of Completion of Required Active Service. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was authorized for separation under the force shaping program for Fiscal Year 2004. He was told that he would have full veteran benefit entitlements under this program. However, because his narrative reason for separation is not correct, he is being denied certain benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA). The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 3 Sep 02. On 15 May 04, the applicant was honorably discharged and issued a narrative reason for separation of, Completion of Required Active Service and was credited with 1 year, 8 months, and 13 days of active service. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice in the processing of the applicant’s discharge. In addition, the applicant has not submitted a timely application. The applicant submitted a request for separation under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, Miscellaneous Reasons, which was approved by his commander. Individual programs fell under the overall umbrella of the Force Shaping Program. Separate programs call for separate criteria. Individuals, like the applicant, who applied to separate prior to fulfilling their Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) would have been required to voluntarily apply under Miscellaneous/General Reasons provisions. On the other hand, personnel who chose not to separate under one of the voluntary programs, but remained in the Air Force, met a force Shaping Board. If they were selected for involuntary separation as a result of the Board, they were given the Reduction in Force narrative reason for separation on the DD Form 214. The applicant’s SPD code and narrative reason for separation are correct as reflected on his DD Form 214 and were issued as a result of his voluntary request to separate from active duty. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR 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 4 Aug 14 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 not 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 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 (OPR) 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-2014-01525 in Executive Session on 18 Dec 2014, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 8 Apr 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 18 Apr 14. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Aug 14.