RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-02258
            INDEX CODE:  128.05

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be given a  constructive  reenlistment  to  qualify  for  a  higher
Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The Military Personnel  Flight  (MPF)  failed  to  provide  counseling
regarding a pending SRB change.  On 6 December 2001 he reenlisted  and
did not know of a reenlistment bonus effective January 2002.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force was on  12
November 1992.

The applicant contracted his last enlistment on 6 December 2001 for  a
period of four (4) years in the grade of staff sergeant.


_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPAE recommended denial.   They  indicated  that  the  applicant
contends  the  Military  Personnel  Flight  (MPF)  failed  to  provide
counseling regarding a pending SRB change.  The applicant reenlisted 6
December 2001 for 4 years and 4 months.  On 17 January 2002,  HQ  USAF
released a new SRB list and announced that affected  personnel  should
be briefed.  The window to  get  the  SRB  recomputed  was  if  member
reenlisted between 2 and 16 January 2002.

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 evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 30 August 2002, a copy of  the  evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the
applicant for review and response within thirty (30) days.  As of this
date, no response has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPAE reviewed this case a second time  due  to  the  applicant’s
contentions and they recommended denial.  They  indicated  that  if  a
member is eligible to extend, they are  never  “forced”  to  reenlist.
This is a choice the member must make  on  their  own.   All  deployed
locations have some type of PERSCO personnel to  assist  members  with
personnel issues.  The PERSCO member may not be co-located  with  each
member, but each deployed member is assigned to a PERSCO team  who  is
responsible for all actions relating to the member.  Therefore, either
the PERSCO team or his home location should have  been  able  to  help
member reenlist.  Lastly, all members  who  are  deploying  must  have
enough retainability at the time of deployment to cover the length  of
deployment as well as 30 additional days.  Member would not have  been
eligible to “wait for STOP  LOSS”  as  he  didn’t  have  the  required
retainability for  the  deployment.   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 evaluation is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL EVALUATION:

On 15 November 2002, a copy of the evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the
applicant for review and response within thirty (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 an error or an injustice  warranting  a  constructive
reenlistment to qualify for a Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB).  The
applicant’s  numerous  contentions   regarding   his   December   2001
reenlistment and the failure of his Military Personnel Flight (MPF) to
properly counsel him  regarding  a  possible  bonus  are  duly  noted.
However, we note that the  contested  SRB  list  was  released  on  17
January  2002  and  the  applicant  reenlisted  on  6  December  2001.
Therefore, at the time he reenlisted, his  MPF  would  not  have  been
aware of the provisions of the pending SRB and  thus  were  unable  to
counsel him regarding an SRB.  We note that the  applicant  apparently
deployed in December 2001 and accordingly, he  was  required  to  have
sufficient retainability to cover the deployment plus an additional 30
days.  It appears that based upon his enlistment of  8  February  1996
for a period of six years, he could have extended this  enlistment  to
cover the deployment requirements since  he  had  previously  extended
this enlistment only for a period of two months; however,  it  appears
that he chose to reenlist rather than extend.  He provided no evidence
that his MPF miscounseled him regarding  his  options  of  reenlisting
versus extending.  It appears that the applicant made his decision  to
reenlist based upon his belief that deployed  locations  do  not  have
personnel who are capable of reenlisting individuals; however, we note
the Air Force indicates that all deployed locations  have  individuals
assigned who deal  with  personnel  issues.   The  applicant  has  not
provided documentary  evidence  that  he  was  miscounseled  that  his
deployed location would not have such personnel.  We, therefore, agree
with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force and  adopt  their
rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant  has  not
been the victim of an error or injustice.  In view  of  the  foregoing
and 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  an  error  or  an  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 AFBCMR Docket Number 02-
02258 in Executive Session on 17 December 2002, under  the  provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

                 Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Barbara J. White-Olson, Member
                 Mr. Charlie E. Williams, Jr., Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 8 July 2002, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 16 August 2002.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 August 2002.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 12 November 2002.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 November 2002.




                       PEGGY GORDON
                       Panel Chair