RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-05612

					COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES 




APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be allowed to reenlist with a Zone B multiple 3.5 Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) for AFSC 6C0X1—Contracting career field, that was in effect at the time the injustice occurred.  



APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was denied reenlistment with an SRB when he was on a permanent change of station (PCS) from OCONUS to CONUS.  His military personnel flight (MPF) failed to ensure he had the required retainability needed for this PCS.  Had his MPF properly secured his retainability through extension of his enlistment, he would have been able to cancel the extension and reenlist with the SRB. 

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



STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 11 Apr 06.

On 24 Mar 14, the applicant was furnished an honorable discharge, and was credited with 7 years, 11 months, and 14 days of active service.   

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C.    




AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice.  The applicant contends he needed retainability for PCS and would have been authorized the SRB in the 6COX1 career field.  However, members only need 12 months of retainability from their Date Eligible to Return from Overseas (DEROS) for a stateside assignment from overseas; the applicant had 14 months of retainability from his DEROS and therefore did not need additional retainability for his upcoming PCS.  However, he did need retainability for approved retraining and could have reenlisted or extended in Aug 2012 to obtain retainability for his approved retraining.  However, that extension or reenlistment in Aug 2012 still would not have made the applicant eligible for the SRB because member's have to be a 3-skill level in the SRB career field at the time of reenlistment or extension to receive the SRB; member's get the 3-skill level on their CGD (his was 10 Apr 2013). 

Additionally, he contends had he been allowed to extend to secure his retainability, he would have been eligible to cancel the extension and reenlist with the SRB.  This is not correct either per AFI 36-2606, Reenlistment in the United States Air Force, retraining Airman must be reenlistment eligible in accordance with paragraph 5.1 (reenlistment eligibility) and may only request cancellation of the extension within 30 days after CGD.  Applicant was not eligible to reenlist per paragraph 5.1 at the time of his CGD.  

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOA 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 21 Jul 14 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D).  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.



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.  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 (OPR) and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief.

4.  The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.



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-2013-05612 in Executive Session on 4 Nov 14 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 2 Dec 13, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 31 Jan 14.
Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Jul 14.

						



3



FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – PRIVACY ACT OF 1974


FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – PRIVACY ACT OF 1974
4