RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2022-01217

XXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL: NONE	 

	HEARING REQUESTED: YES

APPLICANT’S REQUEST

Her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, issued 11 Dec 21, Block 18, Remarks, be changed to show she completed her term of service.  

APPLICANT’S CONTENTIONS

The wording in Block 18 reflects she did not complete her term of service.  She separated early on a Palace Chase contract and signed a two-year obligation with the Air Force Reserve.  She is a full time student and has been unable to find a job that fits with her school schedule.  She applied for unemployment benefits but was denied.  She was advised the Air Force would not release wages because of her DD Form 214.  She cannot be paid unemployment benefits unless her DD Form 214 reflects she completed her service obligation.  

The correction should be made as she completed the required term of service, even though she was an interdepartmental transfer.  The eligibility criteria on her state unemployment website indicates she is eligible for unemployment.  She would like her DD Form 214, Block 18 amended so she may receive the unemployment benefits.  

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant is an Air Force Reserve senior airman (E-4).

On 29 May 18, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force for a period of four years, with date of separation (DOS) 28 May 22.

AF IMT 1288, Application for Ready Reserve Assignment, dated 14 Apr 21, reflects the applicant applied for separation via Palace Chase.  In addition, she signed the Palace Chase Statement of Understanding.    

On 30 Apr 21, the applicant’s commander recommended approval of her request for the USAFR PALACE CHASE Program.  

According to the applicant’s AF Form 2631, Palace Chase Statement of Understanding, her date of separation is indicated as 11 Dec 21, along with reflecting her gaining unit and Palace Chase Contract Expiration Date of 10 Dec 22.  

The applicant’s DD Form 214, issued 11 Dec 21, shows the applicant served on active duty from 29 May 18 to 11 Dec 21 and was released from active duty with a narrative reason for separation of “Intradepartmental Transfer” and Reentry (RE) code “1R” (First-term airmen selected for reenlistment under the selective reenlistment program). Block 18, states “Member has not completed first full term of service.  Subject to recall to active duty and/or annual screening.”  She was credited with 3 years, 6 months and 13 days of active duty service.    

For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B and the advisory at Exhibit C.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION

AFPC/DP2SSR recommends denial.  The Palace Chase program is an early release program which allows members to request transfer from active service to the ARC.  By allowing the early release, the Air Force allows the remaining time on the enlistment contract prior to the DOS to be completed in the ARC.

The applicant’s record shows she applied for Palace Chase and her request was subsequently approved.  Since the applicant separated under Palace Chase, rather than Palace Front, Block 18, stating she had not completed the first full term of active service is correct as indicated.  Further, the statement has nothing to do with the wage information and it is recommended the applicant contact the AFPC/DP1TC, Unemployment Compensation Office for further assistance.  

The complete advisory opinion is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION

The Board sent a copy of the advisory opinion to the applicant on 9 Aug 22 for comment (Exhibit D), but has received no response.   

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

1.  The application was timely filed.

2.  The applicant exhausted all available non-judicial relief before applying to the Board.

3.  After reviewing all Exhibits, the Board concludes the applicant is not the victim of an error or injustice.  The Board concurs with the rationale and recommendation of AFPC/DP2SSR and finds a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  Therefore, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.

4.  The applicant has not shown a personal appearance, with or without counsel, would materially add to the Board’s understanding of the issues involved.

RECOMMENDATION

The Board recommends informing the applicant the evidence did not demonstrate material error or injustice, and the Board will reconsider the application only upon receipt of relevant evidence not already presented.

CERTIFICATION

The following quorum of the Board, as defined in Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR), paragraph 1.5, considered Docket Number BC-2022-01217 in Executive Session on 16 Sep 22:

 , Panel Chair 
 , Panel Member
 , Panel Member

All members voted against correcting the record.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 17 May 22.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Advisory Opinion, AFPC/DP2SSR, dated 9 Aug 22.
Exhibit D:	Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to Applicant, dated 9 Aug 22.

Taken together with all Exhibits, this document constitutes the true and complete Record of Proceedings, as required by AFI 36-2603, paragraph 4.11.9.