RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-03055
INDEX CODE: 128.05
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
She be awarded cash enlistment and reenlistment bonuses for both
periods of her service in the Air National Guard (ANG): 1997 for three
years and 2003 for six years.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
She enlisted in the Virgin Islands ANG (VI ANG) in 1997 for six years
in the 3C0X1 career field. She reenlisted in 2003, in the same Air
Force Specialty Code (AFSC), 3C0X1, for six years. She contends she
was given erroneous information from (ANG) recruiters both at her
enlistment and again at her reenlistment. Her AFSC was deemed
critical at both times which made her eligible for the bonuses.
In support of her appeal, the applicant has provided a copy of her
reenlistment document, DD Form 4, Enlistment/Reenlistment Document
Armed Forces of the United States.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant entered the VI ANG effective 12 January 1997 for a period of
three years. She accepted an Active/Guard Reserve (AGR) position on
26 Jul 2000. She reenlisted in the VI ANG, as an E-6, effective 12
January 2003 for a period of six years. Both enlistments were as a
3C0X1.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
ANG/DPPI recommends denial. The criteria for receipt of
enlistment/reenlistment bonuses in the ANG are that the applicant must
enlist and serve as a Traditional Guardsman in an identified critical
AFSC for a period of six years. DPPI states the applicant enlisted
for only three years at her initial enlistment. By the time she
reenlisted she had accepted an Active/Guard Reserve (AGR) position
that made her ineligible for a bonus, as she was no longer in a
Traditional Guardsman status.
DPPI’s complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air National Guard evaluation was forwarded to the
applicant on 19 December 2003 for review and comment 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 to
include her allegations that she received erroneous information from
her recruiters on her enlistment and reenlistment. However, the
applicant failed to provide documentation to substantiate her
allegation. Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation
of the Air National Guard that at her 1997 initial enlistment she did
not qualify for a bonus, as she did not enlist for the required six
years and at her 2003 reenlistment, she had changed her status from
Traditional Guardsman to Active/Guard Reserve (AGR) that disqualified
her from receiving a bonus since AGR members are not qualified for
enlistment or reenlistment bonuses. 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2003-03055 in Executive Session on 3 February 2004, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Charlene Bradley, Panel Chair
Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Member
Ms. Martha Maust, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 28 Aug 03, w/atch.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, ANG/DPPI, dated 12 Dec 03,w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Dec 03.
CHARLENE BRADLEY
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-00510
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-00510 INDEX CODE: 112.03, 131.09 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her enlistment grade be changed from E-1 (Airman Basic) to E-3 (Airman First Class); that she receive a bonus for enlisting in the 3C1X1 Air Force Specialty (AFS); and, that her promotion to E-4 be adjusted. After reviewing...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-00511
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-00511 INDEX CODE: 112.03, 131.09 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her enlistment grade be changed from E-1 (Airman Basic) to E-3 (Airman First Class) and that she receive a bonus for enlisting in the 3C1X1 Air Force Specialty (AFS). After reviewing the evidence of record, we note that the...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-00507
After reviewing the evidence of record, we note that the ANG cannot determine whether applicant's AFSC was listed as incentive- eligible at the time of applicant's enlistment. Should the applicant provide documentary evidence showing that her AFSC was entitled to a bonus at the time of her enlistment, we would be willing to reconsider her appeal. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-00509
After reviewing the evidence of record, we note that the ANG cannot determine whether applicant's AFSC was listed as incentive- eligible at the time of applicant's enlistment. Should the applicant provide documentary evidence showing that her AFSC was entitled to a bonus at the time of her enlistment, we would be willing to reconsider her appeal. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03679
DPM states the applicant voluntarily did not complete his term of enlistment; therefore, SRB termination and recoupment is mandatory. The DPPRSR evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: He feels he is due the SRB money for his EAD time in the Reserve and while on his AGR tour because he has continued to serve in the 1C6XX career field. Even though he is in the Air Force Reserve, he is still...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-00997
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-00997 INDEX CODE: 110.03 COUNSEL: ZIMMERMAN & LAVIN HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: She be reinstated in the Texas Air National Guard (TXANG) Active Guard/Reserve (AGR) program, effective 15 April 2002, with all pay that was lost (less her subsequent earnings as a civil service technician) or in the...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01288
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant was discharged from the TN ANG for unsatisfactory participation on 31 May 1997 after serving seven years, nine months, and six days of combined Reserve component and Regular Air Force service. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case and while we sympathize with the applicant’s civilian employment predicament at the time, there is simply no...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-00317
DPPI’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant reiterates his contention that he was not awarded service credit for his full-time experience on completion of his training. He addresses the DPPI contention that AFI 36-2005, Table 2.1, Note 8, states that applicants with less than 14 years service credit will be appointed in the grade of captain. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02472
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-02472 INDEX CODE: 128.06 COUNSEL: WALTER L. BOYAKI HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The bonus/loan agreements signed at the time of his appointment in the New York Air National Guard (NY ANG) on 11 March 2001 be honored; or in the alternative, he be allowed to be honorably discharged from the NY ANG. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2002-02537
A request to retire (Temporary Early Retirement Authority – TERA) should have been approved by the Air National Guard (ANG) and the U.S. Air Force. His application to retire early under TERA was disapproved and he subsequently accepted an SSB as a result of an involuntary RIF action. The DPPI statement “116th Wing commander elected to fund the new CM position and according to Georgia (ANG) the applicant did not apply for the position when the vacancy was announced.” He began terminal leave...