RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-00097
            INDEX CODE:  128.05
            COUNSEL:  NONE
            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

      MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 14 Jul 07

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

She be authorized a Zone  B,  Multiple  2.0,  Selective  Reenlistment  Bonus
(SRB).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Due to an error on an extension she completed on 29 Apr 03, she completed  a
second extension on 21 Jun 04 at Seymour Johnson AFB.  She was briefed  that
she was entitled to an SRB for the 16 months of her second  extension.   The
Retentions office at Kadena AB told her that she was  not  entitled  to  the
SRB because the extension was  not  between  36  and  48  months.   She  was
briefed incorrectly and the information  on  the  two  AF  Forms  1411  were
incorrect.

In support of her request,  applicant  provided  a  copy  of  her  extension
contracts.  Her complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted her initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force  on  17
Aug 94.  She has been progressively  promoted  to  the  grade  of  technical
sergeant, having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank  of  1
Mar 05.

She was required to reenlist or extend her enlistment  for  a  total  of  16
months to meet the  retainability  requirements  for  a  PCS  assignment  to
Kadena AB, Japan.  On 29 Apr 03, at Seymour Johnson AFB,  SC,  she  extended
her enlistment for a  period  of  15  months.   On  21  Jun  04,  due  to  a
miscalculation of the initial extension, she was required to extend  for  an
additional month in order to fully meet the retainability requirements.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPAE recommends denial.  DPPAE states it should be  noted  that  there
was no SRB entitlement made on the initial 15-month extension.   Due  to  an
administrative error, the 1-month extension authorized a  Zone  B,  Multiple
2, SRB.  There was no miscounseling and  the  extensions  initiated  by  the
applicant clearly show she was just extending to meet minimum  requirements.
 In order to qualify for an SRB,  members  must  reenlist  or  extend  their
enlistments (in one increment) for a period of at least three years.  At  no
time during the current extensions  executed  by  the  applicant  was  there
authorization or entitlement to a Zone B, Multiple 2.0 SRB.  The  Air  Force
does not authorize SRB payments for any period less than three years.

The only administrative error on either extension document  relates  to  the
second extension of  1-month  and  the  Zone  B,  Multiple  2.0  SRB,  which
erroneously authorizes the SRB.  At no time did the  applicant  ever  intend
to extend for a period sufficient to meet the requirements of the  SRB,  but
only wanting to extend a sufficient time to meet  the  requirements  of  the
assignment, but she is now willing to go back and do an  extension  to  meet
the SRB requirements.

The DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reiterates she was briefed that there was a miscalculation in  the
number of months that she needed to extend as well  as  her  SRB.   She  was
briefed she was entitled to a Zone B, Multiple  2.0  SRB  for  the  16-month
extension.  She was never briefed she had  to  extend  for  three  years  to
receive the SRB.  The extension contract  provided  clearly  shows  she  was
counseled she was entitled to the SRB.  This was not only an  administrative
error but evidence of miscounseling as well.  Her  decision  to  extend  for
the length of time she did was based solely on the counseling she received.

Her complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

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 an error or injustice  warranting  corrective  action  by  this
Board.  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 her SRB entitlements.  We considered  her  request
that she be allowed to retroactively extend  her  enlistment  for  a  period
sufficient enough to receive an SRB; however, we  note  that  the  statement
she initialed in which  she  believes  authorizes  her  to  receive  an  SRB
clearly states that she understands she must extend her  enlistment  in  one
increment for a period of between 36 and 48 months  to  be  entitled  to  an
SRB.  Therefore, absent persuasive evidence that  she  was  miscounseled  or
denied rights to which she was entitled, we adopt the rationale provided  by
the Air Force as 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 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-2006-
00097 in Executive Session on 16 Mar 06, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

      Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
      Mr. Frederick R. Beaman III, Member
      Ms. LeLoy W. Cottrell, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 4 Jan 06, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 26 Jan 06.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Feb 06.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 13 Feb 06, w/atchs.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Chair