RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03990 COUNSEL: NO HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be separated under the FY14 Voluntary Separation Pay (VSP) program versus the FY14 Limited Active Duty Service Commitment (LADSC) program. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: When he applied for the VSP, he checked the following boxes, associated with VSP on his application: a) I agree to accept an Air Force Reserve (AFR) commission; and b) I have read, understand and am attaching my signed RR agreement to receive VSP statement to this voluntary separation application. His application contained numerous attachments including an Individual Ready Reserve (IRR)/Statement of Understanding (SOU) for Officer VSP, a Ready Reserve (RR) agreement to receive VSP, an SOU for Officers applying for retirement/separation under the Voluntary Force Management Programs, and a Statement of Understanding (SOU) for the LADSC Waiver program. When the FY14 Officer Voluntary Force Management Programs were introduced, there were numerous internal issues such that the application process was closed twice and/or the Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC) returned applications waiting for new guidance. Personnel Services Delivery Memorandum (PSDM) 13-65, dated 16 Jul 13 and later amended on 5 Feb 14, contained guidance on waiverable ADSCs/Service commitments and recoupment obligations indicating Undergraduate and Advanced Pilot Training were not waiverable. His AFSC was 11M (Mobility Pilot), so he was not eligible. PSDM 14-08, dated 23 Jan 14 and later amended 4 Feb 14, contained updated guidance releasing 11Ms with a blanket waiver. His application had already been submitted and was never returned to him like many other applicants. On 10 Feb, he received an email from the Separation Processing Manager (SPM) indicating he needed to submit the SOU for the FY14 LADSC Waiver Program. This confused him since he had already submitted it with his original application for the FY14 VSP. He just assumed it had been misplaced, so he sent a new one dated 5 Feb 14 to be added to his application. When he received approval for early separation, it was under the LADSC Waiver program instead of the VSP as he had intended. After inquiring with AFPC, he was told it was because he did not include “Pay” from the justification section of the online VSP application. AFPC chose the program for him rather than contacting him to ascertain under which program he was seeking consideration. After contacting AFPC again, he was told he could submit a change request, which he did on 22 Apr 14. His request was disapproved so he wanted to withdraw his application but found the only way to do so was to prove hardship, which he could not do. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 1 Jun 05, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force. According to the Voluntary Separation Application, last updated 11 Apr 14, he applied for the “SECAF Approved Early Separation Program,” indicating he would like to apply for voluntary separation in accordance with FY14 LADSC Waiver Program/FY14 Voluntary Separation Program. On 26 Sep 14, the applicant signed AF IMT 1288, Application for Ready Reserve Assignment. On 29 Sep 14, the applicant resigned from active duty for miscellaneous/general reasons, with an honorable character of service. He was credited with 9 years, 3 months and 29 days of active service. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. Based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the applicant was separated under the correct program in accordance with the proper procedures and guidelines. Therefore, the applicant’s Separation Program Designator code, narrative reason for separation and characterization of service were properly established in accordance with Air Force instructions. In accordance with PSDM 14-08, FY14 Officer Voluntary Separation Pay (VSP) Program, amended 4 Feb 14, in order to apply for VSP, applicants must include “FY14 Voluntary Separation Pay” in the remarks section of their application. In addition, officers must also complete and attach the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR)/Statement of Understanding to the separation application in the virtual MPF. A review of the applicant’s electronic PPA indicates that he first attempted to request separation 10 Jan 14 prior to the program being open to accepting applications. He had signed and attached an IRR agreement dated 10 Jan 14, however, the applicant withdrew his request in the PPA that same day, so this application was considered null and void. Although null and void, it is important to note that he never mentioned wanting to apply specifically for VSP by putting the term in the remarks section as was required. According to the applicant’s record, he submitted a second application on 5 Feb 14. As with the first application, he did not indicate specifically wanting to apply for FY14 VSP in the remarks section as required by the PSDM. In addition, he did not submit an IRR as an attachment to the application as would be required if he wanted to apply for VSP. Although the applicant has produced a signed IRR document dated 5 Feb 14 in his BCMR application, a review of the actual PPA application has no such document attached to his separation application. On 10 Feb 14, a separations technician sent the applicant an email informing him that “the FY14 LADSC Waiver program has a required Statement of Understanding that you need to provide for the application to be complete. Your application will be placed on hold until 18 Feb 14.” He signed the Statement of Understanding for Officers Applying for Retirement/Separation under the Voluntary Force Management Program and submitted it to the technician which was attached to his PPA. He did not mention to the technician at the time that there must be some mistake since his intent was to apply under the VSP program and not the LADSC program mentioned in the email. It is DPSOR’s opinion that this was an opportunity for the applicant to clarify with HQ AFPC which program he wanted to apply for if it was his intention to apply for VSP instead of LADSC. The applicant was notified on 11 Apr 14 that he was approved for separation under the LADSC waiver program with a mandatory date of separation of 29 Sep 14. It was not until shortly after receiving his separation approval that the applicant submitted a request for change of voluntary separation indicating he wanted to be approved for separation under the VSP program. The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant responded to the advisory opinion indicating it was clear from the outset of the process that he intended to apply for the FY14 VSP program, rather than the FY14 LADSC program. While he accepts the first two facts in the advisory as true, he disputes the third fact and wants the fourth fact changed. He believed while the process was in motion, that he was under consideration for VSP and not LADSC as the Air Force contends. With respect to the advisory opinion stating he failed to notify anyone of a mistake in his application until he was already approved for the LADSC, he did raise concerns prior to that. On 20 Mar 14, 26 days prior to the date the advisory states he first raised concerns, he sent an email raising concerns to the Total Force Service Center (TFSC) questioning the status of his VSP application. On 25 Mar 14, he received a response stating his application for the VSP was still under review. This was an indication to him that the Air Force was still considering him for the VSP program. If the Air Force believed he had not applied for the VSP as the advisory now alleges, why would the Air Force be considering him for a separation under a program for which he never applied? The facts show not only did he apply for the VSP, but the Air Force knew he had applied and was considering his application for the VSP program. With respect to the advisory opinion stating the applicant did not attach proper documentation to his VSP application and that he did not raise concerns with the separations/retirements processing manager, this is simply not true. He engaged in an email conversation with the SPM on 10 Feb 14 in which the manager was requesting additional documentation for the LADSC program. While the advisory states this should have raised red flags, but it did not, he refutes this. He had already submitted the requested documents with his original application and was aware there may have been a problem with the upload of the documents. He requested the SPM notify him if there were any missing documents thereby establishing the fact that he did question which program he was being considered under. Because the SPM never contacted him about any missing documents, it was clear the Air Force had all proper documentation required to apply for the VSP. With respect to the advisory opinion stating the applicant withdrew his signed IRR on 10 Jan, the very same day he filed it, he did not do so voluntarily. He did this because of unclear guidance surrounding the application process. He submitted his application to his squadron commander on 10 Jan 14 to hold until the application window opened on 14 Jan 14. Because new guidance stating the application must be submitted on 14 Jan 14 (or later) or it would not be accepted as a valid application for VSP. It was only due to this new guidance that he withdrew his application. Due to the lack of guidance on waiverable ADSCs and confusing PSDMs, he referenced both for his application. PSDM 14-08 required him to reference PSDM 13-65 for a list of waiverable ADSCs and after reviewing the list, he learned ADSCs were not being waived. It also stated that “the ADSCs listed below may be waived under the LADSC Program.” This statement, along with referencing multiple PSDMs to find the correct information for the VSP program and misleading information from AFPC on whether Mobility Pilots (11Ms) were authorized to apply for VSP, led him to apply for the LADSC Waiver program to waive his UPT and APT obligation, thus allowing approval of the VSP program. Clarification came in the next release of PSDM 14-08 in which the table was inserted into this publication and applicants were no longer required to reference PSDM 13-65. However, his application had already been submitted before the release of the new 14-08 PSDM. In addition, he faced many systems issues while applying for the VSP leading to an 8-hour wait to submit his application. The Air Force was ill-prepared for the amount of bandwidth required, manning needed and financial support for the force reduction programs causing them to “halt work on most of its force reduction programs while it re-evaluates them” as cited in an Air Force Times article from 12 Mar 14. The lack of communication from AFPC on the opening and closing of the VSP window and clarity of the process was one of his main concerns. He never received any information that he was not being considered for the VSP until he was approved for the LADSC. Finally, he knew what was required to be uploaded to apply for the VSP and he checked all the required boxes. When the SPM at AFPC contacted him to submit the SOU for the LADSC program, he was not asked to submit a signed RR agreement as required by the VSP application. He felt this meant the SPM already had the signed RR agreement or he would have asked for it to be uploaded again. The complete APPLICANT review is at Exhibit D. THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations. 2. The application was timely filed. 3. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s complete submission, including rebuttal of the Air Force advisory, we believe the applicant is the victim of an error or injustice. While we note the comments of AFPC/DPSOR indicating that relief should be denied because the applicant was separated under the correct program in accordance with proper procedures and guidelines, we believe a preponderance of the evidence substantiates that corrective action is warranted. In this respect, we note the applicant communicated his intent to separate under the voluntary separation pay program on several occasions and in various correspondences. Additionally, notwithstanding the confusion associated with the multiple personnel service delivery memoranda, the applicant’s original application contained the signed Individual Ready Reserve Agreement/Statement of Understanding for Officer VSP, to receive voluntary separation pay. It is conceivable that the applicant provided all documentation necessary for both separation programs and was mistakenly processed via the limited active duty service commitment program versus the voluntary separation pay program. Therefore, we recommend the applicant’s records be corrected as indicated below. THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to the APPLICANT be corrected to show that on April 11, 2014, he was approved for Voluntary Separation Pay Program with a separation date of September 29, 2014; he signed an Individual Ready Reserve Agreement/Statement of Understanding for Officer Voluntary Separation Pay (VSP) on February 5, 2014 and as a result, DFAS is authorized to make payment; and the DD Form 214, associated with his September 29, 2014 resignation, be amended to read “20170928” in Block 6, Reserve Obligation Termination Date; “USAFR” in Block 9, Command to Which Transferred; “RELEASE” in Block 23, Type of Separation; “MCN” in Block 26, Separation Code; and “Force Shaping-VSP” in Block 28, Narrative Reason for Separation. The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-03990 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 25 Sep 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 22 Oct 14. Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated undated.