RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-00586
INDEX CODE: 128.05
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The Enlistment bonus he received of $5000 be changed to $15,000.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His original Expiration Term of Service (ETS) was 18 November 2004
with less than 16 years of service. His Air Force Specialty (AFS) was
on the Air National Guard (ANG) Enlisted Incentive Payment schedule
for fiscal year (FY) 2005 incentives as a $15,000 reenlistment bonus.
He queried unit personnel in August 2004 on whether information had
been received indicating whether or not the reenlistment bonus for his
AFS would be going up. He was told that the FY05 bonus information
had not yet been published. He checked back in September and was told
the FY05 guidance had been received and his reenlistment bonus would
not increase. As the technician responsible for processing his
reenlistment was about to go on terminal leave and would be available
only one day per week for a limited time, he was encouraged to
reenlist soon. On 29 September 2004, he signed the reenlistment
paperwork and asked once again, whether or not there were any changes
to the amount authorized for his AFS. He was told there were no
changes. On 16 November 2004, he found out that the amount was indeed
different and that it had increased from $5000 to $15000. As he was
improperly advised on the amount of the bonus and the timing of his
reenlistment, he requests his contract be re-accomplished under the
FY05 ANG Incentive Program and he be awarded the additional $10,000 he
would have received had he waited to reenlist.
In support of his appeal, the applicant has provided a personal
statement and copies of the FY 05 ANG Incentive Program – Operational
Guidance Change 1, dated 31 January 2005, and his ANG reenlistment
bonus contract.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant began his military service on 10 September 1982. He has
been progressively promoted to the grade of master sergeant with a
date of rank (DOR) of 1 November 2005. He reenlisted on 29 September
2004 for a period of six years under the FY04 ANG Incentive Program as
the FY05 ANG Incentive Program guidance was not released to the field
until 31 January 2005. He has served 13 years, 5 months, and 29 days
as of March 2006.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
NGB/A1POF recommends denial. A1POF states his complaint is based on
after the fact information. He reenlisted under the FY04 ANG
Incentive Program which entitled him to a reenlistment bonus of
$5,000. The FY05 ANG Incentive Program Operational Guidance was not
distributed to ANG units until 31 January 2005. He reenlisted on 29
September 2004 under the FY04 guidelines and not the FY05 guidelines.
While the timing is unfortunate, he chose to reenlist before the FY04
Incentive Program expired. There was no way for his unit to know
about FY05 Program Guidance before it had been released.
A1POF’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Applicant contends the ANG Incentive Operational Guidance was not
released to the field on 31 January 2005 as stated in the advisory,
but was actually distributed on 19 November 2004 with two subsequent
changes sent out later in 2005.
His original claim he reenlisted as a result of inaccurate and false
information and at the convenience of the MPF was not addressed by the
advisory. His intent is not only to rectify his situation but to shed
light on the fact members must be correctly informed by competent
program managers from the Wing level up to the National Guard Bureau
to ensure they are given the correct information so they can make the
correct decision.
_________________________________________________________________
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 the applicant's submission, we are not
persuaded that his uncorroborated assertion he was miscounseled and
led to reenlist early, thereby qualifying him for a significantly
lower reenlistment bonus, sufficiently persuasive to override the
rationale provided by the Air National Guard. Therefore, we agree
with the opinion and recommendation of the Air National Guard office
of primary responsibility and adopt the rationale expressed as the
basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his
burden of having suffered either an error or injustice and, in the
absence of persuasive 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-
2006-00586 in Executive Session on 1 August 2006, under the provisions
of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. John B. Hennessey, Panel Chair
Mr. Elwood C. Lewis, III, Member
Ms. Donna D. Jonkoff, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 17 Feb 06, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, NGB/A1POF, dated 20 Jun 06.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Jun 06.
Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, undated.
JOHN B. HENNESSEY
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 00178
He is a prior service commissioned officer who was deferred for promotion to the grade of Major by the Air National Guard (ANG) fiscal year (FY) 2004, major promotion board that convened on 19 April 2004, as well as the AF Reserve FY05, major promotion board which convened in February 2005. At that time, he did not realize the ANG board had convened and he thought the Reserve board was his first promotion board. We took notice of the applicants complete submission in judging the merits...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01556
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibits C, D and F. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The 349th MSS/DPMS recommends the applicant be authorized to reenlist into the Air Force Reserve retroactively to his gain date in order to qualify for the Reserve Bonus Incentive program or...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01075
By transferring to the AFR one month before his date of eligibility, he was not included in the AFR promotion process in time to meet the promotion board to captain as would have been directed by ARPCM 02-21. 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 office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140010270
A DD Form 4 (Enlistment/Reenlistment Document Armed Forces of the United States) shows the applicant enlisted in the ARNG of the United States (ARNGUS) and CAARNG on 24 June 2005 for a period of 6 years. The applicant contends that his SLRP eligibility should be reinstated and he should be relieved of the debt because he was eligible to participate in the SLRP; the service representative failed to complete an SLRP Addendum at the time of his enlistment; he subsequently completed the...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00746
Prior to being released on 26 June 2004, he requested additional orders so he may remain on active duty until the MEB had heard his case and made a final decision on it. ______________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that he was not released from active duty with the Air National Guard on 21 January 2006, but was continued on active duty...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00915
Backdating an ACP agreement essentially offers an incentive to an officer for a decision he has already made and provides a retention bonus for a period of service already served. In accordance with ANGI 36-101, Air National Guard Active Guard Reserve (AGR) Program, chapter 6, paragraph 6.1, this order is considered probationary. Paragraph 2.2.1 of the ANG FY 2013 ARP Policy states that members on probationary tours must have orders in hand that cover the entire length of the agreement at...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150000078
The applicant states: * he was erroneously paid the SLRP incentive while deployed in 2005 * if not for the erroneous payment, he would have been eligible for SLRP when he later reenlisted in 2011 when the SLRP maximum was $50,000 * he was first made aware that he was not eligible for SLRP payment due to being a dual-status military technician through the California Army National Guard (CAARNG) Incentives Task Force audit process * he mobilized in January 2005 while serving as a dual-status...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-00639
However, his name had already appeared on the Reserve Officer Personnel Management Act (ROPMA) Mandatory Promotion List prior to him meeting the time in grade (TIG) requirement for a Unit Vacancy (UV) promotion. In support of his appeal, the applicant has provided promotion orders to first lieutenant and captain, and the fiscal year 2004 (FY04) Reserve of the Air Force Line and Nonline Captain Promotion Selection Boards results. He was commissioned in the Louisiana ANG (LAANG) on 20 August...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080007549
The applicant also provides a memorandum, dated 24 January 2006, subject: Implementation Guidance for Location Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) for Army National Guard (ARNG) Active Guard/Reserve (AGR) Soldiers; an extract from Title 37, U. S. Code, section 308, with interpretive notes and decisions; a letter, dated 25 October 2005, from the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Reserve Affairs) to a Member of Congress; an email, dated 5 May 2005; her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02208
Based on a review of the facts, we agree she should have met an FEB after her elimination from FWQ training as an FEB would be the only correct action to evaluate retention in (or removal from) training, and qualification for continued aviation service. She failed two opportunities to complete fixed wing training and should have met an FEB. ____________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air...