RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-00192 

 

 XXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

Her reenlistment documents be changed to the correct date so 
that she will be entitled to a Zone A, Selective Reenlistment 
Bonus (SRB). 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

Her retraining package was erroneously disapproved. She 
believes had she been approved for retraining in the 
May/June/July 2008 timeframe, she would have extended to meet 
the retraining retainability requirements, went to technical 
school, and then reenlisted in the SRB career field. 

 

She should have been advised to submit a waiver so that she 
could reenlist after completion of retraining into the SRB 
career field. 

 

She should have been given a higher priority for retraining 
since she has a Special Duty Identifier (SDI). 

 

In support of her appeal, the applicant provides three DD Forms 
149, Application for Correction of Military Record; a copy of 
her letter through her Member of Congress; a copy of her 
retraining package and additional supporting documents. 

 

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit A. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant extended for 14 months to accept an assignment 
overseas in Sep 05. This established her Date of Separation 
(DOS) as 23 Nov 08. Since first-term airmen are only limited to 
23 months total in extensions during their first enlistment, she 
only had 9 months left as a first-term airman and would have had 
to reenlist to secure the approved retraining. 


 

She applied for retraining, on 7 Mar 08, and only listed/applied 
for one career field (6C011, Contracting); after being initially 
denied, the applicant reapplied for retraining and was approved 
for retraining in the 6C011 career field on 25 Feb 09. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial, stating, in part, the applicant is 
seeking approval based on AFPC erroneously disapproving her 
Mar 08 retraining application; however, they note the 
applicant’s consideration for retraining was properly 
administered and the actions completed correctly. In fact, even 
if the applicant’s Mar 08 retraining could have been approved, 
she would not have been able to extend her enlistment, but would 
have to reenlist in order to obtain the required retainability. 

 

DPSOA provided a letter to the applicant to ensure that she 
understood the policies governing retainability requirements for 
first-term airman and that she was not eligible for a 
retainability suspense waiver. 

 

In addition, although the applicant contends that she should 
have been given a higher priority based on her Special 
Experience Identifier (SEI) not being updated, this is not true; 
her application was considered correctly and she was not 
selected. Also, AFPC Retraining worked with everyone in the 
8M000 – Postal career field that didn’t have a secondary career 
field to ensure they were afforded every opportunity to retrain 
into an available career field if they desired. 

 

The complete AFPC/DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the 
applicant on 1 Oct 10 for review and comment within 30 days. As 
of this date, no response has been received by this office 
(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 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 and adopt its 
rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has 
not been the victim of an error or injustice. In view of the 
above and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no 
basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this 
application. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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-2010-00192 in Executive Session on 24 March 2011, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Forms 149, dated, 17 Dec 09 and 8 Jul 10 

 with attachments. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 2 Sep 10. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Oct 10. 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair