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 approved for on  2 Jun  04
to qualify for cross-training.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She wants her full SRB for the entire four years of  her  reenlistment
because she received erroneous information that adversely affected her
decision to reenlist.  She was told she needed to extend for 23 months
in  order  to  be  accepted  for  training  under  the  Career  Airmen
Reenlistment Reservation System (CAREER) program, but that this  would
not count as obligated service that would affect her bonus.  This  was
confirmed by AFI 36-2606 and the AFPC Continuity Book.  When  the  Air
Force discovered their information was  incorrect,  they  did  not  do
anything to inform their personnel on briefing the people it affected.
 Instead, they held back  portions  of  the  bonus  payment  that  was
expected and gave  out  false  reasons  as  to  why  the  payment  was
withheld.  On 7 Jan 05, she received her SRB  payment  for  two  years
rather than the entire four years of her enlistment.  At  the  end  of
Feb 05, the Peterson AFB Inspector General (IG) told her the  AFI  and
Continuity Book were incorrect and AFPC did not  inform  the  military
personnel  flights  (MPFs).   If  she  had  been  given  the   correct
information when she was  approved  for  retraining,  she  would  have
reenlisted rather than extended.

A staff sergeant (SSgt) who is the NCOIC of Reenlistments  provides  a
statement indicating she briefed  the  applicant  that  the  obligated
service would be forgiven and she would receive  the  full  SRB.   She
confirms the applicant’s assertions.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on active  duty  in  the  grade  of
staff sergeant (SSgt).

She initially enlisted in the Regular Air Force for a  period  of  six
years on 21 Oct 98, giving her a date of separation (DOS)  of  20  Oct
04.

In 2001, the Air  Force  implemented  the  Full  Reenlistment  Program
(FRP).  From 2001 until recently the FRP was used only for second-term
and career airmen.  The Air Force interpreted the program  to  forgive
any and all extension periods (maximum of 23 months)  that  first-term
airmen (FTA) entered when retraining  into  SRB  Air  Force  Specialty
Codes (AFSCs).  AFI 36-3606, Reenlistment in the US Air  Force,  dated
21 Nov 01, para. 2.14.2., stated that CAREER retrainees did  not  lose
obligated service from their bonus  for  any  unserved  extensions  of
enlistment which totalled 23 months or less.

On 27 Apr  04,  the  applicant  was  notified  she  was  approved  for
retraining under the CAREERS program.

The HQ AFPC Continuity Book, dated 1 Jun 04, page  9,  stated  that  a
member retraining under the  CAREERS  program  would  not  be  charged
obligated service for the period of  the  23-month  extension,  either
prior to or after entering the extension.

On 2 Jun 04, the applicant’s request for a 23-month extension  to  her
enlistment to qualify for cross-training under the Air  Force  CAREERS
program was approved, giving her a new DOS of 20 Sep 06.  Section  IX,
Additional Extension Counseling, second paragraph,  of  the  extension
form AF IMT 1411, reflected her  understanding  that  her  Career  Air
Force Specialty Code (CAFSC) was currently on the SRB skills list  and
that if she reenlisted before completing this extension, she would not
be paid for any period of this extension she had  not  served  on  the
date  of  reenlistment  unless  [emphasis  added]  she  was   an   FTA
reenlisting after receiving approved CAREERS retraining.

On 18 Sep 04, the applicant began her retraining class.  On 20 Oct 04,
she entered into the 23-month extension period.   She  graduated  from
Technical School Training on 16 Dec 04.

On 23 Dec 04, the applicant reenlisted for a  period  of  four  years.
The Reenlistment Eligibility Annex to DD Form 4, AF IMT 901,  reflects
she would receive a Zone B, multiple 5.5 bonus based on four years  of
continued service.

In 2005 during a revision review of AFI  36-2606  and  applicable  DOD
guidance, the Air Force  discovered  the  FRP  also  applied  to  FTA,
specifically to FTA retraining under  the  CAREER  program.   The  Air
Force now interpreted the service could  only  forgive  the  obligated
service  if  the  member  had  not  entered  the   extension   period.
Reenlistments in today’s Air  Force  required  airmen  with  obligated
service to include the obligated service to reenlistment contract.

As a result, and on behalf of AF/DPL, HQ AFPC/DPP released  a  message
on 16 Feb 05, Subject: Career Job Reservation (CJR) Program  and  Full
Enlistment Program Clarification.  This message stated that  FTAs  who
extended for CAREERS retraining and  who  had  entered  the  extension
period as  of  the  class  graduation  date  could  not  cancel  their
extensions, and that all remaining time would be considered  obligated
service.  However, if the extension obtained  for  CAREERS  retraining
had not been entered as of class graduation date,  FTA  could  request
cancellation of the extension through their MPFs for  the  purpose  of
immediate reenlistment.  Airmen had to  request  cancellation  of  the
extension within the first 30 days after the class graduation date and
through the MPF.  A Note within the message stipulated that MPFs could
use this message as authority to cancel extensions, even if more  than
30 days had passed since  class  graduation  date,  until  28 Feb  05.
However, after 28 Feb 05, MPFs had to forward an Exception  to  Policy
(ETP) package with complete justification AFPC/DPPAER.

According to HQ AFPC/DPPAE (Exhibit C), MPFs were directed to  contact
airmen to give them the opportunity to administratively correct  their
contracts to maximize their SRBs.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPAE recommends the  application  be  disapproved.   The  Air
Force changed the policy regarding  all  FTA  and,  regretfully,  this
member is affected by the change in policy.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant believes she should not be affected by a  policy  change
that came out after she reenlisted on 23 Dec  04.   According  to  the
information she was given and the regulation  out  at  the  time,  her
extension would not be considered obligated.  She decided to  reenlist
after being given that information and  should  not  have  to  add  20
months onto her reenlistment in order to be paid the full  bonus.   If
there was a new policy being written or an old policy  being  changed,
then she should have been given the opportunity  to  make  a  decision
with that information rather than being told two months after the fact
that the new policy adversely affected her situation.

Included with  her  rebuttal  is  her  former  commander’s  supporting
statement.  He believes HQ AFPC/DPPAE does not logically justify their
recommendation.  They admit the  applicant  reenlisted  prior  to  the
publication of the policy change, yet they recommend  denial.   He  is
appalled that AFPC would apply the policy change  retroactively.   The
applicant weighed the options she was given at the time and decided in
good faith to continue serving her country.  He questions the value of
any Air Force contract if AF/DP and AFPC are allowed to renege on  the
applicant’s signed contract.  The applicant is a tremendous asset  and
the terms of her reenlistment contract should be honored.

The applicant’s commander also supports  her  appeal,  contending  she
should  not  be  penalized  because  the  MPF  gave  her   the   wrong
information.

A complete copy of  applicant’s  response,  with  attachments,  is  at
Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ USAF/JAA notes the second paragraph of Section IX on  the  AF  Form
[1411] regarding FTA and the applicant’s initial understanding of  the
policy [see Statement of Facts].  They also  note  that,  nearly  nine
months after completing her extension paperwork and about  two  months
after reenlisting, AFPC issued a  policy  letter  changing  the  rules
concerning extensions and reenlistments.  This 16 Feb 05  letter,  and
the change in policy it affected, was the  justification  provided  to
the applicant for  reducing  the  amount  of  SRB  to  which  she  was
entitled.   The  applicant  was  advised  the  previous   policy   was
inconsistent with the DOD Military Pay Manual.  Her commander and  MPF
tried unsuccessfully to  resolve  the  issue  in  her  favor.   It  is
appropriate for the Board to grant relief in this case.  At  the  time
of the applicant’s extension and reenlistment, Air  Force  policy  was
well  known  and  consistently  interpreted.   She   reasonably   (and
justifiably) relied upon  published  Air  Force  regulations  and  the
advice she was given by her MPF.  She specifically initialed the block
on  her  extension  paperwork  noting  that  her  extension  would  be
cancelled upon her reenlistment.  It is inappropriate to penalize this
airman, and others  similarly  situated,  by  a  policy  retroactively
applied by AFPC.  Recommend her request be granted, her  extension  be
cancelled, and her reenlistment date be readjusted.

A complete copy of the additional evaluation is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the additional evaluation was forwarded to the
applicant on 12 Aug 05 for review.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.    The applicant has exhausted all remedies  provided  by  existing
law or regulations.

2.    The application was timely filed.

3.    Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the existence of error or injustice to warrant voiding the applicant’s
23-month extension so that her SRB will be  based  on  four  years  of
reenlistment.   We  noted  HQ  AFPC/DPPAE’s  recommendation  that  the
applicant’s request  be  denied  because  of  the  change  in  policy.
However, we find their rationale hidebound and inappropriate  to  this
applicant and others similarly  situated.   The  Air  Force’s  initial
misinterpretation of the FRP resulted in AFI 36-3606 and the  HQ  AFPC
Continuity Book indicating that FTA CAREER retrainees would  not  lose
obligated service from their  SRBs  for  any  unserved  extensions  of
enlistment totaling 23 months or less.  This was further stipulated in
Section IX of the applicant’s AF Form  1411  extension.   Nearly  nine
months after completing her extension paperwork and about  two  months
after her Dec 04 reenlistment, HQ  AFPC  issued  a  policy  letter  on
16 Feb  05,   changing   their   rules   concerning   extensions   and
reenlistments to be consistent with the DOD Military Pay  Manual,  and
thereby reducing the applicant’s SRB.  At the time  of  her  extension
and reenlistment, the applicant reasonably and justifiably  relied  on
published Air Force regulations and the advice she was  given  by  her
MPF.  Then, because of its initial error, the Air Force changed  their
official  policy  and  further  aggravated  the   situation   by   the
retroactive application of  the  change  and  their  apparently  tardy
dissemination  of  this  information  to  the  MPFs.    Further,   the
applicant’s superiors strongly support her appeal.  We therefore agree
with HQ USAF/JAF’s  conclusion  that  it  would  be  inappropriate  to
penalize this airman, and  others  similarly  situated,  by  a  policy
retroactively  applied  by  AFPC,  and  further   agree   with   their
recommendation that  the  applicant’s  23-month  extension  should  be
cancelled and her reenlistment date  adjusted.   In  the  interest  of
justice, the applicant’s records  should  be  corrected  as  indicated
below.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the  Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating to the APPLICANT, be corrected to show that:

      a.  Her extension of her 21 October 1998 enlistment, approved on
2 June 2004, for a period of  twenty-three  (23)  months  be  declared
void.

      b.  She was honorably discharged on 20 October 2004, rather than
22 December  2004,  and  reenlisted  in  the  Regular  Air  Force   on
21 October 2004, rather than 23 December 2004, for a  period  of  four
(4) years, with entitlement to  a  Zone  B,  Multiple  5.5,  Selective
Reenlistment Bonus.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 20 October 2005 under the provisions of  AFI  36-
2603:

                 Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Panel Chair
                 Mr. James A. Wolffe, Member
                 Ms. Kathy L. Boockholdt, Member

All members  voted  to  correct  the  records,  as  recommended.   The
following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR  Docket  Number  BC-
2005-01813 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 May 05, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAE, dated 14 Jun 05.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Jun 05.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 7 Jul 05, w/atchs.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, HQ USA/JAA, dated 4 Aug 05.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 12 Aug 05.




                                   KATHLEEN F. GRAHAM
                                   Panel Chair

AFBCMR BC-2005-01813




MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

      Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air
Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority
of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is
directed that:

      The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air
Force relating to    , be corrected to show that:

                  a.  Her extension of her 21 October 1998 enlistment,
approved on 2 June 2004, for a period of twenty-three (23) months be,
and hereby is, declared void.

                  b.  She was honorably discharged on 20 October 2004,
rather than 22 December 2004, and reenlisted in the Regular Air Force
on 21 October 2004, rather than 23 December 2004, for a period of four
(4) years, with entitlement to a Zone B, Multiple 5.5, Selective
Reenlistment Bonus.





   JOE G. LINEBERGER

   Director

   Air Force Review Boards Agency