RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: 02-02336
INDEX CODE 128.05
COUNSEL: None
HEARING DESIRED: No
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her four-year reenlistment on 1 Apr 02 be backdated to 5 Feb 02 so she
may receive a Zone A Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
She was unable to take advantage of her SRB due to maternity leave and
Stop Loss.
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit
A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 7 Feb 96 for a
period of six years, giving her a date of separation (DOS) of 6 Feb
02.
According to a leave slip provided by the applicant, she was on
convalescent/maternity leave from 25 Dec 01 through 4 Feb 02. Pursuant
to an AFBCMR Staff inquiry, HQ AFPC/DPPAER informally advised that the
applicant may have had a Stop Loss extension carrying her from her 6
Feb 02 DOS until her reenlistment on 1 Apr 02 for 4 years. A
reenlistment contract in her military records indicates she reenlisted
on 30 Apr 02 for a period of four years. She would have had to
reenlist on or before 5 Feb 02 for four years in order to receive a
Zone A, multiple 0.5 SRB.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPPAE provides their rationale for recommending denial.
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the
applicant on 9 Aug 02 for review and comment 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 applicant was timely filed.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of error or injustice. After a thorough review of the
evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded
that her reenlistment should be backdated so she may qualify for a
reenlistment bonus. Applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however,
we do not find these uncorroborated assertions, in and by themselves,
sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air
Force. The applicant could have reenlisted some time while she was on
leave, and she apparently returned from leave in time to have
reenlisted and qualified for an SRB. She has not established that she
was unable to reenlist while on maternity leave or how Stop Loss would
have affected her eligibility to reenlist. We therefore agree with the
recommendations of the Air Force and adopt the rationale expressed as
the basis for our decision that the applicant has not sustained her
burden of having suffered either an error or an injustice. In view of
the above and absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no
compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.
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 issue(s) involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.
_________________________________________________________________
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 in
Executive Session on 21 November 2002 under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Albert F. Lowas, Jr., Panel Chair
Mr. James E. Short, Member
Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Member
The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number 02-
02336 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 11 Jul 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant’s Military Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAE, dated 1 Aug 02.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Aug 02.
ALBERT F. LOWAS, JR.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-00011
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00011 INDEX CODE: 110.03, 131.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. Her pay records be corrected to show that on 1 Sep 99 she was authorized payment of $1,395.92 and that she was relieved of her indebtedness. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: 02-02427 INDEX CODE 128.05 112.07 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her nine-month extension executed on 11 Jan 02 be voided (per Exhibit E) and she be allowed to reenlist for six years so she may qualify for a Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB). HQ AFPC/DPPAER informally advised the AFBCMR Staff...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00782 INDEX CODE 112.07 128.05 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her reenlistment on 9 November 2001 be voided and a constructive reenlistment request of 20 January 2002 be granted to qualify for a higher Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB). The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03679
The remaining 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 at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPAE recommends the application be denied. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D). We note that, since the applicant was not in a required 5-skill level...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02341
The law was later changed and after 1 Feb 78, female officers and enlisted incurred a six-year MSO upon entering active duty. The DD Form 4 she signed at that time credited her with two years of inactive military service. Under that change, a six- year MSO would have been authorized for females who were enlisting in the Air Force by the time the applicant separated in 1979 but not for those, like the applicant, who enlisted prior to 1978.
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-02616
Had he known of the exact date, he would have waited until after 30 Apr 02 to reenlist. After reviewing the evidence of record, we believe that the applicant should be afforded the opportunity to reenlist in the 3S0X1 career field and receive the Selective Reenlistment Bonus. _________________________________________________________________ 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...
After careful consideration of applicant's requests and the available evidence of record, we find insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant corrective action. _________________________________________________________________ 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01104
On 23 Jul 02, she was notified of her commander’s intent to recommend an entry-level separation (ELS) from the Air Force. She received an RE code of “2C” (Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge or ELS without characterization of service). _________________________________________________________________ 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...
He received an LOR on 7 Apr 82 for failing to report for duty on 3 April 82. On 17 May 83, after consulting with counsel, the applicant requested discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that his UOTHC discharge should be upgraded to honorable or general.
Her case was presented before an evaluation officer who recommended that she be discharged from the Air Force and provided a general discharge. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS reviewed applicant's request and recommends denial. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 May 02.