RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-02692
INDEX CODE: 12.05, 128.05
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be reenlisted in the Air Force effective 15 Aug 00 for a period of 6
years so that he may receive a tax-free Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB)
payment.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was eligible to reenlist and receive a Combat Zone Tax Exclusion while
he was deployed, however, he was never briefed or informed of his
eligibility. Upon return to his home station, he was briefed in error that
he would receive the tax exclusion as long as he reenlisted within 30 days.
Prior to reenlisting on 27 Sep 00 it was discovered that he returned from
his deployment in August, vice September, and that he would not receive the
tax exclusion.
In support of his request applicant submitted a copy of his travel voucher
summary, his deployment orders and AF Form 973, Request and Authorization
for Change of Administrative Orders. His complete submission is at Exhibit
A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 13
Nov 92. He reenlisted on 1 Apr 96 for a period of 4 years. He is
currently serving on an extension of his enlistment in the grade of senior
airman and has a date of separation of 31 Oct 01.
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:
AFPC/DPPAE reviewed applicant's request and recommends denial. DPPAE
states that the applicant was eligible to reenlist at the time he was
deployed and collect a tax-free SRB entitlement. Review of his records
indicates he possessed sufficient retainability for the temporary duty
(TDY) prior to his deployment. As such, the military personnel flight
(MPF) was not required to counsel him on reenlistment options for the
purpose of deployment (see Exhibit B).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 22 Nov
00 for review and response within 30 days. As of this date, this office
has received no response.
_________________________________________________________________
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 probable error or injustice. We find no evidence of error in
this case and after careful consideration of the evidence provided, we are
not convinced the applicant has suffered from an injustice. We took note
that the applicant had sufficient retainability prior to departing on his
deployment. Consequently, there was no reason for military personnel
flight (MPF) personnel to provide him counseling regarding any of his
retention options and unfortunately, his eligibility for the Combat Zone
Tax Exclusion. Applicant's contention that he was advised inappropriately
upon return to his home station that he would be able to reenlist and still
receive the tax exclusion is duly noted. However, we do not find his
assertion, in itself, sufficiently persuasive to warrant correction of his
records. Therefore, in view of the foregoing and in the absence of
persuasive 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 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 7 Feb 01, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Panel Chair
Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr., Member
Mr. Philip Sheuerman, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 29 Sep 00, w/Atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 8 Nov 00.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 22 Nov 00.
VAUGHN E. SCHLUNZ
Panel Chair
The complete 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 7 Jun 02 and again on 21 Jun 02 for review and comment within 30 days. We also accept their recommendation to change the applicant’s reenlistment date to 18 Jan 02. VAUGHN E. SCHLUNZ Panel Chair AFBCMR 02-00714 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01234
However, the recoupment of bonus monies is driven by the assigned SPD code. The AFPC/DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit D. DFAS-POCC/DE recommends the applicant’s request to change his SPD code be denied. The applicant originally requested his RE code also be changed; however, AFPC/DPPRSP has administratively corrected his records to reflect he was issued RE code “1J.” Applicant’s contentions regarding the separation program designator (SPD) he was assigned at the time of his discharge are...
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. _________________________________________________________________ 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-02258
The SRB review had not been announced as of the date the member reenlisted and therefore the MPF was not able to brief this member it had changed. The SRB review had not been announced as of the date member reenlisted and therefore the Military Personnel Flight (MPF) was not able to brief this member it had changed. The applicant has not provided documentary evidence that he was miscounseled that his deployed location would not have such personnel.
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...
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.
_________________________________________________________________ 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...
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was advised by a Military Personnel Flight (MPF) representative, that if volunteered for an overseas assignment and extended his current enlistment for a period of 36 months to obtain the required retainability, he would receive a Zone C Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) upon entering into the extension. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS...
In support of his request, applicant submits copies of his AFI 36-2401 application, the AFI 36-2401 Decision, his OPR closing 15 Jun 97, and a statement from his Military Personnel Flight (MPR) (Exhibit A). Although the final evaluator signed the OPR on 27 Jun 97, the fact remains the OPR was not required to be filed in the applicant’s OSR before the selection board convened on 21 Jul 97 (Exhibit C). Despite the fact the 15 Jun 97 OPR was submitted on the correct closeout date, it was the...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-02693
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: According to AFI 36-2606, paragraph 2.8., to be eligible for a Zone C SRB, airmen must complete at least 10 but no more than 14 years of total active federal military service (TAFMS) (including current enlistment and periods of active duty) on the date of reenlistment or beginning an extension of enlistment; reenlist or extend their enlistments (in one increment) in the Regular Air Force (RegAF) for at...