RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-03558
            INDEX CODE:  100.03

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He receive a constructive reenlistment effective 29 April 2004, for
5 years and 4 months; and that he be authorized a Zone A,  multiple
4.5, Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) for 5 years.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Due to the changes in reenlistment policy by HQ AFPC, he was denied
the  opportunity  to  reenlist  during  the  30-day  window   after
graduation from technical school, which would have resulted in  him
receiving the SRB.

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.   He  should  have   been   given   the
opportunity to reenlist with the SRB at the rate it was if  he  had
reenlisted in April.

In support of his appeal, applicant submitted a personal  statement
and  copies  of  his  reenlistment  contract   and   extension   of
enlistment.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 12 August 1998, applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force  for
a period  of  six  years,  with  a  date  of  separation  (DOS)  of
11 August 2004.  On 26 August 2003, he extended his enlistment  for
23 months for the purposes of qualifying for training.   This  gave
him a  new  DOS  of  11 July  2006.   Applicant  was  approved  for
retraining   into   Air   Force   Specialty   Code   (AFSC)   3C231
(Communications - Computer System Controls) in 2003  and  graduated
on 29 March 2004.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPAE reviewed this  application  and  recommended  denial.
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).

On 5 March 2004, the Air Staff changed the policy  and  all  airmen
had to be within three months of their Expiration Term  of  Service
(ETS) to be eligible to reenlist.   Applicant’s  original  ETS  was
11 August 2004, therefore, he was not eligible  to  reenlist  until
1 May 2004.

On 29 April 2004, the SRB  for  the  career  field  that  applicant
retrained into was deleted and no one was eligible to  receive  the
bonus.

On 1 May 2004, the Air Staff changed the policy  again  and  first-
term airmen could reenlist  as  soon  as  they  had  a  career  job
reservation (CJR).  However, by 1 May  2004,  applicant’s  30  days
from class grad date had expired.  Therefore, he was  not  eligible
for the bonus that went away on 29 April 2004.

Applicant was not eligible to reenlist and receive an SRB according
to the policy in effect at that time.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to  the  applicant
on 14 January 2005 for review and comment within 30  days.   As  of
this date, no response has been received by  this  office  (Exhibit
D).

___________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ  USAF/JAA  reviewed  this  application  and  recommended  denial
stating, in part, the applicant argues that due to changes  in  Air
Force policy, he was denied the opportunity to reenlist during  the
30-day window following graduation from his  technical  school  and
was therefore precluded from obtaining an SRB.  He  considers  this
to be an error or injustice.  While the applicant may be the victim
of unfortunate  timing,  it  does  not  appear  that  an  error  or
injustice has occurred to warrant a change to his military records.

In  sum,  the  Secretary  has  the  legal  authority  to  determine
eligibility periods for reenlistment.  While the applicant’s window
of eligibility was changed in a  manner  that  prevented  him  from
reenlisting before his new career field was taken off the  critical
skills list, that, in itself, does not appear to  be  an  error  or
injustice.  Additionally, because the applicant did not extend  his
reenlistment for more than three years in order to retrain, he  was
not “otherwise qualified” under the provisions of 37 USC  308,  and
is therefore not entitled to receive the SRB as a matter of law  or
regulatory right.  We recommend that the Board deny the applicant’s
petition.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit E.

___________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the additional Air Force evaluation was forwarded to  the
applicant on 26 April 05 for review and comment within 30 days.  As
of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit
F).

___________________________________________________________________

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.  After a  thorough
review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are
not persuaded  that  the  applicant  should  be  given  the  relief
requested.  Applicant’s contentions are  duly  noted;  however,  we
found no evidence that the applicant was miscounseled  or  that  he
has been treated any differently than  others  who  were  similarly
situated.    Therefore,   we   agree   with   the   opinions    and
recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary  responsibility
and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that  the
applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  In the
absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to
recommend granting the relief sought.

___________________________________________________________________

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-2004-03558 in Executive Session  on  29  June  2005,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Gregory H. Petkoff, Panel Chair
      Ms. Jan Mulligan, Member
      Ms. Patricia A. Robey, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 Nov 04, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAE, dated 7 Jan 05.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Jan 05.
      Exhibit E.  Letter, HQ USAF/JAA, dated 21 Apr 05.
      Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 26 Apr 05.



                                   GREGORY H. PETKOFF
                                   Panel Chair