RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-01689
            INDEX CODE:

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  28 NOVEMBER 2005


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His  Selective  Reenlistment  Bonus  (SRB)  be  changed  from  a   2.5
multiplier to a 5.5 multiplier.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was eligible to reenlist in May 2003 and was prevented  from  doing
so until December 2003.  During this time his SRB was reduced  from  a
5.5 multiplier to a 2.5.   The  only  reason  he  was  prevented  from
reenlisting is because he was falsely accused of an assault.   He  was
found not guilty in a special court-martial.

He had done all the paperwork and was ready to reenlist on 1 May 2003.
He doesn’t think it is fair to be falsely  accused  of  something  and
lose out on his bonus.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a copy of an AF Form 1359,
Report of Result of Trial showing that he was found not guilty of  the
charge of assault and its two specifications on 2 October 2003.

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving in the Regular  Air  Force  in  the
grade of staff sergeant.

On 17 April 2003, applicant’s commander originally nonselected him for
reenlistment because he was under investigation.  His commander  later
changed the reenlistment eligibility code to  2X  (First-term,  second
term, or career airman considered but not  selected  for  reenlistment
under the SRP, in accordance with AFI 36-2606, Table 3.2, Item 23), in
May 2003.  Charges were preferred against the applicant on 2 September
2003 for two specifications of assault that took place on or about  29
March 2003 in Colorado Springs, CO.  The AF 1359, Report of Result  of
Trial, provided by the applicant  indicates  a  special  court-martial
found him not guilty of both specifications charged under Article 128,
UCMJ, on 2 October  2003.   Following  the  court’s  findings  of  not
guilty, the applicant’s commander selected him for reenlistment  on  8
October 2003.  The applicant reenlisted for a period of five years  on
5 December 2003 and acknowledged at that time he would be paid a  Zone
B Multiple  2.0  bonus.   Information  provided  to  AFMPC/JA  by  the
applicant’s unit indicates  the  SRB  multiplier  for  his  Air  Force
Specialty changed from a 5.5 multiplier to a 2.0  multiplier  in  June
2003.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/JA states  the  applicant  was  automatically  disqualified  from
reenlisting when he sought to do so in May 2003 as  a  result  of  the
investigation into his alleged criminal misconduct and pending  court-
martial charges.

To obtain relief, the applicant must show by a  preponderance  of  the
evidence  that  there  exists  some  error  or  injustice   warranting
corrective action by the Board.  Nothing in the  information  provided
from the applicant (or otherwise obtained) suggests any impropriety or
unfairness meriting the relief the applicant seeks.  By  any  measure,
it appears the investigation was properly conducted, resulting in  the
applicant’s automatic ineligibility  for  reenlistment.   The  charges
were ultimately referred to trial where the special court-martial  was
not convinced that  the  applicant’s  charges  were  proven  beyond  a
reasonable doubt.  There is no  evidence  the  applicant  was  falsely
accused, as he contends.  Once the trial  was  over,  the  applicant’s
reenlistment eligibility  code  was  properly  changed  to  allow  his
reenlistment.

Lastly, reenlistment  bonuses  have  been  traditionally  reviewed  by
considering basic contract law principles.  The status of  the  member
at  the  time  of  reenlistment  controls.   They  believe  the  whole
statutory and regulatory bonus scheme is to provide  an  incentive  to
reenlist in certain critical specialties.  In their  opinion,  if  the
member was not eligible for the SRB at the time he and the  Air  Force
agreed to reenlistment, it was not part of the consideration  for  the
agreement.  The applicant acknowledged in his  reenlistment  documents
that he was only entitled to  the  multiple  2.0  bonus  available  in
December 2003 when he agree to serve for  an  additional  five  years.
Therefore, they do not believe an  error  or  injustice  occurred  and
recommend denial of applicant’s request.

A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPAE states SRB is based on the date  a  member  reenlisted  and
this member was not eligible to reenlist prior to  the  SRB  changing.
Therefore, they recommend denial of applicant’s request.

A complete copy of their evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 13 August 2004, copies of the Air Force evaluations were  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 Force
and adopt their rationale as the basis for  the  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, AFBCMR
Docket Number BC-2004-01689, in Executive Session  on  27 April  2005,
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Ms. B. J. White-Olson, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Jay H. Jordan, Member
                 Mr. Albert C. Ellett, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 4 Apr 04 w/atch.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 30 Jul 04.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 3 Aug 04, w/atchs.
      Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 Aug 04.




                             B. J. WHITE-OLSON
                             Panel Chair