RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-01879
INDEX CODE: 100.06
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her 1 August 1985 reenlistment be changed to a date after she received
her 5 skill level so she could receive a Selective Reenlistment Bonus
(SRB).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
In the summer of 1985, she was forced to reenlist rather than extend
to accept voluntary cross-training into Air Traffic Control. She
believes she may have been miscounseled by the retention counselor.
She wanted to extend her enlistment and reenlist after attaining her 5-
level in Air Traffic Control and collect an SRB. They are just now
finding some cross-trainers were allowed to extend and collect a bonus
after attaining the 5-level. She was advised by a recent retiree that
after her case was researched, her records were corrected.
Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of master
sergeant (MSgt).
On 1 August 1985, the applicant reenlisted in the Air Force for a
period of four years. The applicant initialed and signed the DD Form
4/2 acknowledging that she had carefully read the document, questions
had been explained, she fully understood that only those agreements in
Section B of the document or recorded on the attached annex would be
honored and that any other promises or guarantees were made to her by
anyone were written in the reenlistment contract (Exhibit B).
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPAE states the applicant was approved for retraining into Air
Traffic Control. She reenlisted to obtain the retainability required
for the retraining. A review of the applicant’s request indicates she
has not provided any documentation indicating she was miscounseled or
was entitled to other benefits she did not receive. DPPAE further
states that without additional documentation from the applicant, it
appears the case was handled in accordance with the regulations in
effect at that time. AFPC/DPPAE recommends the applicant’s request be
denied.
A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 1
July 2004, for review and response. 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 Force
and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the
applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. The
applicant alleges she was miscounseled by the MPF; however, she has
not provided evidence to support her allegation of miscounseling. It
appears she was required to reenlist in order to obtain the
retainability required for the cross-training. The applicant contends
she was informed by a recently retired member who had a similar
situation that her records were corrected; however, the applicant does
not provide any further documentation to support this contention.
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-
2004-01879 in Executive Session on 19 August 2004, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Wayne R. Gracie, Panel Chair
Ms. Jean A. Reynolds, Member
Ms. Beth M. McCormick, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, 6 Jun 04.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAE, dated 25 Jun 04.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Jul 04.
WAYNE R. GRACIE
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-00628
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00628 INDEX CODE: 128.05 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be granted the Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) in his new career field (3E0X2) rather than the SRB from his previous career field (3E5X1). _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03595
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-03595 INDEX CODE: 128.05 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: May 25, 2008 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to show he reenlisted into the 1N531 (intelligence) Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) instead of the 3P071 (security forces) AFSC. AFPC Reenlistments advised the...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01674
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-01674 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her narrative reason for separation and Separation Program Designator (SPD) code be changed from “Pregnancy” to “Medically Disqualified not for Cause.” _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT...
Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A. The applicant entered the Technical School at Keesler AFB, MS on 8 January 1986, to complete the Air Traffic Control Operator course E3ABR27230. This extension would normally satisfy the service retainability for retraining requirements only if the controlled duty assignment (CDA) for the ATC course was less than 23 months and technical school completion date was prior to his initial date of separation of 6 May 1986.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03802
According to AF Form 1411, Extension or Cancellation of Extension of Enlistment in the Regular Air Force, on 17 Mar 04, the applicant extended his 3 May 00 enlistment for 18 months for the purpose of having sufficient retainability for Career Airmen Reenlistment Reservation System (CAREERS) retraining into Air Field Management (AFSC 1C7X1). As pointed out by HQ USAF/JAA, the applicant is “better off” with the existing 17-month extension plus a four-year reenlistment, with a four-year SRB,...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01813
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-01813 INDEX CODE: 128.05, 112.05 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 11 Dec 06 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) be paid based on the full four years she reenlisted for on 23 Dec 04 and not be reduced by the time remaining on the 23-month extension she was...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00097
She was briefed that she was entitled to an SRB for the 16 months of her second extension. The extension contract provided clearly shows she was counseled she was entitled to the SRB. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the Air Force office of primary responsibility that the error on her one-month extension contract indicating her entitlement to an SRB, is administrative in nature and does not, in itself, authorize...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00288
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She received an assignment notification to Incirlik ABS, Turkey, and was advised that she would have to extend for 14 months to obtain retainability for this assignment. On 15 August 2003 the applicant reenlisted in the United States Air Force for a period of 4 years and 18 months. DPPAE’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03558
He was not notified of the change in policy of his SRB, and was miscounseled concerning whether or not he was eligible to reenlist immediately after school. In accordance with the governing instruction, AFI 36-2606, (Reenlistment in the United States Air Force) applicant had to reenlist within 30 days of class graduation date to receive the SRB that was in effect as of the date he was approved for retraining (31 July 2003). Applicant was not eligible to reenlist and receive an SRB...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03397
He graduated from technical training school on 7 April 2004, and after inquiring about reenlisting, was informed the rules had changed and he was not eligible to reenlist, because he was not within three months of his date of separation (DOS). His complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit E _________________________________________________________________ ADDITONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ USAF/JAA reviewed a similar application and provided an advisory which indicates in...