Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0200876
Original file (0200876.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-00876
            INDEX CODE:  128.05

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He  receive  the  difference  between  the  2.5   multiple   Selective
Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) for the 1A4X1 AFSC and  a  3.0  SRB  for  the
1A4X1D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The reasons the applicant believes the  records  to  be  in  error  or
unjust and the evidence submitted in support  of  the  appeal  are  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.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPAE states that they recommend disapproval.  The applicant  was
counseled as to his option of extending and  reenlisting  at  a  later
date.  The applicant chose to reenlist and not take the chance the SRB
multiple would go down.  A complete copy of the evaluation is attached
at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 7 June 2002, a complete  copy  of  the  Air  Force  evaluation  was
forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days.  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  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 Staff
and adopt their rationale as the basis for  our  conclusion  that  the
applicant  has  not  been  the  victim  of  an  error  or   injustice.
Therefore, in the absence of 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 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  on  23
July 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Grover L. Dunn, Member
                 Mr. Albert J. Starnes, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 6 Mar 02, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 31 May 02.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 7 Jun 02.




                                   PATRICIA D. VESTAL
                                   Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0200514

    Original file (0200514.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    At the time the applicant requested information about reenlisting, current policy stated that a member could only reenlist 90 days prior to their expiration of term of service (ETS). 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 their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0200965

    Original file (0200965.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ 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. A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 14 June 2002, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2000 | 9900605

    Original file (9900605.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    STATEMENT OF FACTS: The Air Force indicated that on 11 Dec 98, the applicant reenlisted in the Regular Air Force for a period of four years and did not receive an SRB. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Skills Management Branch, AFPC/DPPAE, reviewed this application and indicated that at the time of applicant’s reenlistment, neither he nor the Military Personnel Flight (MPF) had any reason to believe his AFSC would get an SRB. After reviewing the applicant’s submission and the evidence of...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0200284

    Original file (0200284.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    He received an uncharacterized entry level separation on 21 Aug 01 under the provisions of AFI 36-3208 (fraudulent entry into military service). The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force at Exhibits C and D. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPRS stated that, on 15 Aug 01, the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2000 | 9903106

    Original file (9903106.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    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 | CY2002 | 0201154

    Original file (0201154.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The doctor told him the only way to get out of the Air Force was to say that he was a homosexual and he would be out in two days. On 25 July 1995, the commander notified the applicant that he was being discharged from the Air Force with an entry-level separation. A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPAE states that the reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 2C, Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0002178

    Original file (0002178.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    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 | 0200426

    Original file (0200426.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    The RE code which was issued at the time of applicant’s separation accurately reflects the circumstances of her separation and we do not find this code to be in error or unjust. In view of the foregoing, we recommend the applicant’s records be corrected by deleting the words “and conduct” from her narrative reason for separation. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02272

    Original file (BC-2003-02272.DOC) Auto-classification: Approved

    Members of the Board Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, Ms. Martha J. Evans, and Mr. E. David Hoard, considered this application on 21 August 2003. PATRICIA D. VESTAL Panel Chair Attachment: Ltr, AFPC/DPPAE, dtd 31 Jul 03 AFBCMR BC-2003-02272 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code, Air Force Instruction 36-2603, and having assured compliance with the provisions of the above regulation, the decision of the Air Force Board for Correction of...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0200714

    Original file (0200714.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    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...