RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-04705 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His entitlement to separation pay be examined in respect to his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, in conjunction with a separation date of 22 Oct 12; and if appropriate, correct boxes 18 and 26 of applicable DD Form 214. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His DD Form 214, with a separation date of 22 Oct 12, contains the statement, “Member is eligible for separation pay lump sum payment of $29,941.66,” but does not contain the required separation code in block 26. Defense Finance and Accounting Service will not process the separation pay without the separation code. Additionally, applicant requests the opinion of the Board if prior DD 214’s, with separation dates of 21 Jan 12 and 4 Feb 12, need correction as well. Since October of 2012, he has worked with several organizations in determining his eligibility for separation pay. Per National Guard Bureau (NGB) guidance to State Personnel, all DD Forms 214 after the member’s sixth year must contain the language of separation payment. According to DoD Financial Management Regulation (FMR) Volume 7A, Chapter 35, Section 3502, he meets all four conditions for entitlement to full non-disability separation pay. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is a Master Sergeant (E-7) currently serving with the Iowa Air National Guard. According to DD Form 214, with a separation date of 21 Jan 12, Block 18, Remarks section states “member is not eligible for separation pay.” According to DD Form 214, with a separation date of 4 Feb 12, Block 18, Remarks section states “member is not eligible for separation pay.” According to DD Form 214, with a separation date of 22 Oct 12, Block 18, Remarks section states “Member is eligible for Separation Pay lump sum payment of $29,941.66.” Block 26, Separation Code is blank/not completed. The relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letter prepared by the Air National Guard (ANG) office of primary responsibility (OPR) which is included at Exhibit C. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: NGB/A1PP recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. There is a preponderance of evidence proving the applicant is not entitled to receive involuntary separation pay. The member has not provided evidence that he was denied being continued on active duty. He was placed on orders 31 days after the end of his mobilization tour, which he concludes as being his final “involuntary separation” that qualified him to receive involuntary separation pay. From 2007 thru 2012, the applicant’s orders ended as a result of a completion of tour or demobilization, which is not considered an involuntary separation. In addition to his orders not ending due to involuntary separation, the applicant has not provided documentation proving that he was not provided the ability to be continued on orders as he was for the previous six years. Finally, there have been similar cases in the state of Iowa in which individuals have filed congressional inquiries with the same requests and have been found ineligible for involuntary separation pay. There has already been a request to ARPC to correct the applicant’s DD Form 214 dated 22 Oct 12, which must contain the Separation Program Designator (SPD) code “T50” since he was demobilized from a contingency operation. A1PP recommends the DD Form 214 dated 22 October 2012 be re-issued after block 26, Separation Code, is corrected to read “T50”. The complete A1PP 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 18 Sep 15 for review and comment within 30 days. The applicant responded stating he was denied continuance on orders to negate the financial responsibility to the State of Iowa and National Guard Bureau (NGB) J32-CD. He believes if not for the liability of the severance payment, his counterdrug orders would have continued immediately after the Title 10 orders. He provides sworn statements from Senior Master Sergeant Retired XXXX, the Senior Enlisted Advisor for XXXX, and Lieutenant Colonel XXXX, the Officer In Charge of XXXX, supporting his statements about the mandatory break in service in order to deny separation payments. In addition, he provides a copy of the guidance policy to the state programs on separation payments for counterdrug personnel. Lastly, he believes the reasoning behind the denial of continuance on orders was to eliminate the entitlement of separation pay and is in violation of NGB 500- 2/ANGI 10-801, National Guard Counterdrug Support, 2-10(e)(1), which states “Full-Time National Guard Duty Counterdrug (FTNGDCD) orders will reflect the entire duration of the mission and will not be broken to exclude weekends for the sole purpose of avoiding the costs of pay and allowances and associated entitlements/benefits.” The complete APPLICANT rebuttal 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. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and careful consideration of the applicant’s contentions, we are not persuaded that he has been the victim of an error or injustice. We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission, including rebuttal response, in judging the merits of the case; however, we do not find the evidence presented sufficient to override the rationale provided by the ANG OPR. The applicant alleges he was involuntarily separated from an active duty manday tour, however, we concluded similarly to the ANG OPR, in that completion of tour and demobilization do not equate to an involuntary separation or a separation pay entitlement. Furthermore, the applicant opines he was denied continuance of orders in violation of National Guard Bureau policy; however, this panel acknowledged that the decision to apply the ANG policy, or not, is beyond the purview of this Board. 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 documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-04705 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 13 Nov 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, NGB/A1PP, dated 17 Feb 15. Exhibit D. Letter, APPLICANT, dated 8 Oct 15.