RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-02178
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He receive a Zone B, Multiple 1.5, Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was miscounseled by his Military Personnel Flight (MPF) that his SRB had
increased from a multiple 1 to 1.5.
The applicant states that his MPF changed his reenlistment contract to
reflect the increase in the SRB multiple and the Air Force should honor the
contract.
In support of the appeal, applicant submits a copy of his reenlistment
contract.
The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the
applicant's military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the
appropriate office of the Air Force. Accordingly, there is no need to
recite these facts in this Record of Proceedings.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Chief, Skills Management Branch, AFPC/DPPAE, reviewed the application
and states that after further research concerning the reason for the change
in the reenlistment document, the MPF advised that applicant’s contract was
correct at the time of his reenlistment. On 12 July 2000, the applicant
indicated his SRB was incorrect and without first verifying the correct SRB
entitlement, the MPF reacted by changing his reenlistment document to
reflect an SRB multiple 1.5. However, in their opinion, the administrative
error had no significant impact on the applicant, nor was it of such a
level to justify rewarding him for this simple mistake. The fact remains
the applicant received the correct SRB entitlement and the error noted does
not justify additional entitlements beyond those authorized by law and
Department of Defense policy. Therefore, they recommend the application be
denied.
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states that he
reenlisted for a period of 6 years, not 4 years as indicated in the
advisory opinion. In addition, the statement that he indicated to the MPF
that the SRB was incorrect is not true. He reenlisted on 19 June 2000,
while serving on an over 30-day deployment. On 12 July 2000, he returned
from the deployment and took his reenlistment paperwork to the MPF. At the
time, he was not aware of the increase in the SRB multiple. An individual
at the MPF informed him the SRB had increased. He told the individual of
his reenlistment date and was told that he was eligible, and his
reenlistment paperwork was changed. It was not until he received his Leave
and Earning Statement on 27 July 2000, that he discovered he was not
receiving the increased SRB multiple.
The applicant’s complete response is attached at Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________
ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Chief, General Law Division, AF/JAG, states that although the MPF
member acting on behalf of the Air Force executed the defective amendment
to the applicant’s AF Form 901, Reenlistment Eligibility Annex to DD Form
4, he had no actual authority to do so since “1.5” was not designated as
the SRB multiple when the applicant reenlisted on 19 June 2000.
Furthermore, unauthorized acts of a Government agent are not binding on the
Government. Therefore, they recommend the applicant’s request be denied.
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit G.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A complete copy of the evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 30
January 2001 for review and response with 30 days. However, 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. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of probable error or injustice. In this respect, we note that a
representative of the applicant’s MPF amended his reenlistment contract to
reflect a multiple of “1.5,” rather than “1.” Although AF/JAG states that
the MPF representative had no actual authority to do so since “1.5” was not
designated as the SRB multiple when the applicant reenlisted and
unauthorized acts of a Government agent are not binding on the Government,
we disagree. While the amended contract may not be legally binding on his
entitlement to a multiple “1.5,” we believe it is unfair that he was
allowed to reenlist the day prior to his SRB multiple being increased.
Therefore, we recommend his records be corrected to the extent indicated
below.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating
to APPLICANT be corrected to show that he was honorably discharged on 19
June 2000, rather than 18 June 2000, and reenlisted in the Regular Air
Force on 20 June 2000, rather than 19 June 2000, for a period of six (6)
years with entitlement to a Zone B, Multiple 1.5, Selective Reenlistment
Bonus.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive
Session on 1 May 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Patrick R. Wheeler, Panel Chair
Mr. E. David Hoard, Member
Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, Member
45
All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The following
documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 2 Aug 00, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 26 Sep 00.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 13 Oct 00.
Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 27 Oct 00.
Exhibit F. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 27 Nov 00.
Exhibit G. Letter, AF/JAG, dated 11 Dec 00.
Exhibit H. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 30 Jan 01.
PATRICK R. WHEELER
Panel Chair
AFBCMR 00-02178
MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF
Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force
Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section
1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that he was honorably
discharged on 19 June 2000, rather than 18 June 2000, and reenlisted in the
Regular Air Force on 20 June 2000, rather than 19 June 2000, for a period
of six (6) years with entitlement to a Zone B, Multiple 1.5, Selective
Reenlistment Bonus.
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states that at his reenlistment briefing on 11 January 1999, he signed a document, in good faith, indicating his intent to reenlist, after being briefed that he was to receive a SRB of 1.5. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD...
Based on the information he received from the MPF, on 16 Aug 00, he reenlisted for a period of 6 years. The applicant states, and we believe, that he based his decision to reenlist on his entitlement to receive the SRB. RICHARD A. PETERSON Panel Chair AFBCMR 00-03317 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat...
According to DPPAE, a review of the applicant’s case file indicated that the Military Personnel Flight erroneously indicated on the AF Form 901 that he was entitled to a Zone C, Multiple Three (3.0), SRB. Furthermore, we believe that the Military Personnel Flight had the responsibility of providing the applicant with the correct information. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the...
AF Form 1441 (Extension or Cancellation of Extensions of Enlistment in the Regular Air Force/Air Force Reserve) has an additional extension counseling section which includes two statements which were not initialed by him indicating that he was not briefed this information. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that the extension...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Skills Management Branch, AFPC/DPPAE, reviewed the application and states that applicant initialed the counseling section of the extension document indicating that he was aware and understood that he could reenlist versus extend. Furthermore, the applicant has not provided any evidence to substantiate that the MPF failed to properly do their job despite his initials on the extension document...
They state that the Military Personnel Flight's (MPF) inclusion of an IEB on the applicant's supplemental enlistment agreement was an administrative error and is not legally binding as he was not authorized to receive an IEB in the 1N431 AFS. In response to the Board's request, the General Law Division, HQ USAF/JAG reviewed the application and recommended the request be denied. __________________________________________________________________________ ______________________ THE BOARD...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00489
The applicant reenlisted before the announcement date. 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. _______________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered Docket...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00288
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She received an assignment notification to Incirlik ABS, Turkey, and was advised that she would have to extend for 14 months to obtain retainability for this assignment. On 15 August 2003 the applicant reenlisted in the United States Air Force for a period of 4 years and 18 months. DPPAE’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit...
The evidence of record reflects that the applicant reenlisted on 1 Dec 98. At the time of his reenlistment on 18 December 1998, he was entitled to a Zone C, Multiple 1.0, Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) with obligated service through 20 January 1999. At the time of his reenlistment on 18 December 1998, he was entitled to a Zone C, Multiple 1.0, Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) with obligated service through 20 January 1999.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00718
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-00718 INDEX CODE: 112.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APLICANT REQUEST THAT: His 17 January 2003 extension be cancelled and he be allowed to reenlist effective 20 January 2003, with authorization to a Zone A Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB). Therefore, at the time of the applicant’s DOS in January 2003, the...