I'll tell you why:
d. I didn't separate
e. I didn't voluntarily retire
f. I didn't separate

Does that clear things up? This is why there are court cases over this kind of stuff. The AF uses retirement and separation interchangeably except for when it doesn't. A lawyer might say clause e. "retirement or separation" means that retirement and separation are not the same thing. That would mean clauses pertaining to separation do not apply to a retirement unless they specifically say retirement.

The other reason I was surprised is I specifically asked how mandatory retirement would affect my ACP recoupment 2 years before my retirement date. At the time I was told none of those clauses applied to me and the government would not recoup its money. The fact that I was given what turned out to be an incorrect answer means I'm not the only one in the AF who didn't understand the wording of the ACP agreement--*the ACP office didn't understand it in 2010*.

I'm not really expecting to get anything back but I'm hoping to get in touch with the current ACP office on the off-chance they actually made a mistake. The worst that can happen is they'll say no and I'll go on living my life $17,000 poorer than I planned to be this month. The saving grace is that my "plan for unemployment fund" was large enough to absorb the debt and I started a decent-paying job 4 days after retirement.

I do appreciate the replies and the genuine interest. I'm dismayed the default attitude of the AF is (and forever shall be, no doubt) to interpret anything that can be interpreted in the way that has the most negative impact on the member, with no concession that another point of view might actually be possible.