AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  95-00926 
COUNSEL:  NONE 
HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

His  Zone  A,  Multiple  One,  Selective  Reenlistment  Bonus  (SRB) 
which was recouped on or about  17 March  1993  be  reinstated and 
that he be reimbursed for the additional $400.00 he was required 
to pay back in conjunction with the recoupment. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
He has no idea how the AFSC in which he reenlisted and received a 
SRB  was  removed.  When  he  was  going  through  the  process  of 
applying for retraining, the person who was  helping him  at  his 
local military personnel flight  (MPF) was new at the job  and not 
quite  sure  how  to  reclassify  him  into  the  Pararescue  career 
field.  This  may  have  been  the  cause  for  the  removal  of  his 
original AFSC. 
In support of his request, applicant submits documents associated 
with  the  issues cited  in his  contentions.  These documents are 
appended at Exhibit A. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
Applicant  contracted his  initial enlistment  in  the  Regular Air 
Force on 2 November 1989.  He is currently on active duty in the 
grade of airman basic  (E-I), with the effective date and date of 
rank of 9 March 1998. 
The applicant reenlisted on 12 February 1993 for a period of four 
years in the Control Air Force Specialty Code  (CAFSC) of 36151. 

The  r e l e v a n t   f a c t s   p e r t a i n i n g   t o  t h i s   a p p l i c a t i o n ,   e x t r a c t e d   from 
t h e   a p p l i c a n t ' s   m i l i t a r y   r e c o r d s ,   a r e   c o n t a i n e d   i n   t h e   l e t t e r s  
t h e   A i r   F o r c e .  
p r e p a r e d  
by 
i n   t h i s  
A c c o r d i n g l y ,  
Record  of  P r o c e e d i n g s .  

o f f i c e s  
t o   r e c i t e   t h e s e   f a c t s  

of 

t h e  

a p p r o p r i a t e  
t h e r e   i s   no  need 

AIR STAFF EVALUATION: 
The BCMR/Special Actions  Section, AFMPC/DPMAPE, stated that the 
applicant was a  first term airman who applied  for a Career  Job 
Reservation  (CJR) in  AFSC  361x1  on  10  Dec  92. 
His  CJR  was 
approved shortly thereafter with a 12 Feb 93 expiration date.  He 
also  had  applied  for  CAREERS  retraining  during  this  same 
timeframe.  The applicant reenlisted in AFSC 361x1 on 12 Feb 93 
and received a Zone A,  Multiple One, SRB.  It appears since he 
had  not  received  a  response on  his  retraining application, he 
elected to reenlist in AFSC  361x1  rather than allow his CJR to 
expire and risk disapproval of his retraining application.  Had 
the  applicant  allowed his  CJR  to expire and  if his  retraining 
application had been disapproved, he would have had to separate 
on 1 November 1993.  Based on input from the Retraining Section 
at AFMPC, the applicant received approved CAREERS retraining into 
AFSC 115x0  (which was authorized a Zone A, Multiple One-Half SRB) 
on  4  February  1993,  prior  to  his  reenlistment  in AFSC  361x1. 
However,  it appears both  the applicant  and CBPO personnel  were 
unaware of the approved retraining.  A review of the AF Form 901 
(Reenlistment Eligibility Annex  to DD  Form  4) does not  reflect 
the  reenlistment  guarantees  normally  associated  with  approved 
CAREERS retraining.  The applicant was  allowed to continue his 
CAREERS  retraining  into AFSC  115x0  even  though  he  had  already 
reenlisted in AFSC 361x1.  As a result of his reenlistment, his 
category of  enlistment was  changed  to  reflect  he  was  a  second 
term airman.  Normally, CAREERS retraining is reserved for first 
term airmen.  On or about 17 March 1993,  the applicant's  Zone A, 
Multiple One, SRB was  recouped.  Since the SRB recoupment took 
place at a base which has since been closed, it is difficult to 
determine  for  certain who  directed  the  recoupment and  why  the 
action was  taken.  The applicant  states he  was  advised by  his 
previous  supervisor, that  the  SRB was  recouped  as he  would  no 
longer be  working  in  the  SRB  AFSC  due  to  his  retraining.  He 
claims unit personnel  at his next  station informed him his  SRB 
was  wrongfully  recouped  which  generated  his  request  for 
reinstatement of the SRB. 
DPMAPE stated that  there were  some Personnel Data  System  (PDS) 
update irregularities in the applicant's  case.  The applicant did 
not reenlist to qualify for retraining but instead reenlisted in 
his  previous  AFSC  (361x1) with  a  normal  approved  CJR. 
The 
applicant's  previous AFSC  (361x1) was  removed  from the  PDS and 
the retraining AFSC  (115x0) loaded shortly after his retraining 
was  confirmed. 
The 
Classification Office at AFMPC directed that the be PDS corrected 
to  reflect  the  original  AFSC  (361x1).  The  most  significant 
irregularity occurred when the Retraining Section, AFMPC, updated 
an  SRB  waiver  code  in  the  PDS.  It  was  initially updated  to 
reflect the applicant had retrained into an equal or greater SRB 
AFSC.  This is not  what  occurred  in the applicant's  case.  As 
information,  SRB  waiver  codes  are  updated  to  facilitate 
retraining or  assignment  into an AFSC  other than the SRB AFSC. 
SRB  waiver  codes  are  normally  approved  in  cases  were  the  Air 

This  was  not  the  correct  update. 

2 

95- 00926 

Force  has  determined  there  is  a  more  immediate  need  for 
individuals  in  another  AFSC  other  than  their  SRB  AFSC. 
Accordingly, if approved for an SRB waiver, the individual would 
continue to receive SRB payments from the previous reenlistment. 
DPMAPE recommended denial of the applicant's request to have the 
recouped  SRB  reinstated.  It  appears the  recoupment action was 
based  on  Air  Force  policy  in  effect  at  the  time  of  the 
applicant's reenlistment.  According  to the policy, individuals 
who  reenlisted  to  qualify  for  the  retraining  and  when  they 
retrained  from  an AFSC  with  a  higher  SRB  into an AFSC  with  a 
lower  SRB,  they  were  not  entitled  to  an  SRB. 
Based  on  this 
policy, it appears corrective action to recoup his SRB was taken 
shortly after the applicant reenlisted.  This was a valid action 
since the applicant was not entitled to the SRB.  In July 1994, 
the  policy  was  changed  to  allow  applicants  retraining  from  a 
higher SRB to a lower SRB AFSC to receive the lower SRB. 
DPMAPE  indicated  that  if  the  Board  believes  the  applicant Is 
situation warrants relief, the Board  could grant  him  a Zone A, 
Multiple  One-Half,  SRB  in  conjunction  with  his  four-year, 
12 February  1993  reenlistment, with  obligated  service  through 
1 November 1993  (Exhibit C). 
The Claims Section, DFAS-DE/FYDEC, stated that  the applicant is 
requesting reimbursement for an additional $400.00 he alleges he 
was  required  to  pay  back  in  conjunction  with  a  Selective 
Reenlistment  Bonus  (SRB)  recoupment.  The  gross  amount  of  the 
applicant's SRB  on 12 February 1993 was $1,830.07.  The Federal 
Income Tax Withheld  (FITW) was $366.01;  therefore, the net amount 
received by  the  applicant was  $1,464.06.  When  the  applicant's 
Air Force Specialty Code  (AFSC) changed, the SRB  was recouped in 
the amount of $1,830.07 and the FITW wages were reduced by that 
amount.  The FITW deduction of  $366.01 was probably refunded to 
the applicant when he  filed his  1993  income tax return.  Since 
the amount recouped equals the gross amount of SRB,  there has not 
been an error.  FYDEC concurs with the denial recommendation of 
AFMPC/DPMAPE  (Exhibit D) . 
Through  further  research  with  DFAS-DE/FYDEC,  the  following 
information was provided:  (FITW -  Federal Income Tax Withheld) 

Date  - SRB 
1993 

$1830.07 

Jan 
Feb 
Mar-Apr 
May-Oct 
Nov- Dec 
Total-Year 

F I TW - SRB 

Re coupe d 

FITW 

$366.01 

$1830.07 

$  32.63 
398.64 
65.26 
- 0 -  
90.92 
$507.45 

From May  through  Oct  (6 months),  the  applicant  repaid  the  SRB 
debt  in the amount of  $305.01 a month  for a total of  $1830.07. 

3 

95-00926 

0 

4 

During  this  six month  period, zero  (0) federal  income tax was 
withheld.  Applicant's normal  rate  of  FITW  during  this  period 
would  have  been  $32.63  x  6  =  $195.78.  FITW-SRB was  $366.01  - 
195.78  (adjustment) =  $170.23  unrecovered until he filed his tax 
return (1040) with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). 
The applicant's total amount of  FITW  for the year was  $587.45, 
this amount  included the  SRB  tax withheld and was  reflected on 
his W-2 for the tax year 1993  (the $366.01 FITW-SRB is not listed 
as a separate entity on the W-2).  DFAS indicated that since the 
applicant's SRB was not  calculated into his year-end wages, the 
unrecovered FITW would have been recovered when he filed his 1993 
Federal Income Tax Return with the IRS. 
DFAS indicated that when the applicant was  initially issued the 
SRB  in Feb  93,  the  FITW was  transferred quarterly  to the  IRS. 
Since the money was sent to another agency, any adjustment would 
be made through that agency (IRS) and not the Air Force. 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
Copies of the Air  Force evaluations were  forwarded to applicant 
on 10 July  1995  for review and  response.  As  of  this date, no 
response has been received by this office  (Exhibit E). 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 

1. 
law or regulations. 
2.  The application was timely filed. 
3.  Insufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate  the  existence of  probable  error  or  injustice.  We 
took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the 
merits  of  the  case;  however,  we  agree  with  the  opinions  and 
recommendations  of  the  respective  Air  Force  offices  and  adopt 
their  rationale  as  the  basis  for  our  conclusion  that  the 
applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  In 
this respect, it was noted that the Selective Reenlistment Bonus 
(SRB) recoupment action was based on Air Force policy  in effect 
at  the  time  of  the  applicant's reenlistment  and,  due  to  this 
policy,  he  was  not  entitled  to  the  SRB. 
Therefore,  absent 
sufficient evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis 
to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 

~ 

~~ 

The  applicant  be  notified  that  the  evidence  presented  did  not 
demonstrate  the  existence  of  probable  material  error  or 
injustice; that  the  application  was  denied  without  a  personal 

4 

9 5 - 0 0 9 2 6  

appearance; and  that  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 this application in 
Executive  Session  on  9 July  1998, under  the provisions of AFI 
36-2603: 

Mr. Thomas S.  Markiewicz, Panel Chair 
Mr. Jackson A. Hauslein, Member 
Mr. Michael P. Higgins, Member 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit A. 
Exhibit B. 
Exhibit C. 
Exhibit D. 
Exhibit E .  

DD Form 149, dated 7 Mar 95, w/atchs. 
Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Letter, HQ AFMPC/DPMAPE, dated 17 May 95. 
Letter, DFAS-DE/FYDEC, dated 14 Jun 95 
Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 10 Jul 95. 

THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ 
Panel Chair 

5 

9 5 - 0 0 9 2 6