RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-02322 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

Her debt of $5000.00 received in conjunction with her Special 
Pay Incentive (SPI) bonus be cancelled. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

A debt was established because she fell 12 points short of 
obtaining 50 points to qualify for a Reserve satisfactory year 
from Mar 06 through Mar 07 as required by her SPI contract. 
Through no fault of her own, she started drilling with her 
Reserve unit five months late. She indicates the delay was due 
to the processing of her paperwork through her previous unit. 

 

The Air Force recognized the delay and offered her an additional 
period of time to complete the remaining 12 points, which she 
promptly earned the additional 12 points and more. The Air 
Force now claims that she earned the additional points; however, 
they cannot be credited because she was “no longer in the bonus 
program.” 

 

She served in the Air Force specialty expressly stated in her 
contract (46N1) when earning the additional 12 points prior to 
Mar 09 and she should be credited with the additional 12 points. 

 

In support of her appeal, the applicant provides a personal 
statement; copies of responses to inquires from her Members of 
Congress, dated 17 Aug 09, 7 Dec 09, and 12 May 10, and other 
supporting documents. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 


Based on information provided by the Air Force Reserve office of 
primary responsibility (OPR), the applicant was approved for her 
SPI contract on 26 Jan 06. She completed her oath of office as 
a Reserve officer on 17 Mar 06 and signed the SPI agreement the 
same day. 

 

The Point Credit Accounting Record System (PCARS) reflects the 
applicant performed duty on 8 and 9 Apr 06. Her next duty 
performance was recorded on 12 Aug 06. Additionally, the 
records reflect during Retention/Retirement (R/R) Year ending 
29 Mar 07, she was credited with 38 retirement points, and no 
active duty points. During R/R Year ending 29 Mar 08, she was 
credited with 23 retirement points, and no active duty points. 
During R/R Year ending 29 Mar 09, she was credited with 
45 retirement points, and 5 days of active duty. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

ARPC/DPAAH recommends denial, stating, in part, since the 
$5000.00 payment received by the applicant was based on a full 
year’s participation, which she completed 38 of the required 50 
points during that year, she is not entitled to the $5000.00 she 
received. 

 

The applicant did not perform at least 12 days of active duty as 
required by the SPI contract para 1.2.2. She earned 38 of the 
50 points required for a good year of participation, therefore, 
the money was recouped per Department of Defense Instruction 
(DODI) 1205.12, Reserve Component Incentive Programs Procedures. 

 

The applicant was transferred to the Individual Ready Reserve 
(IRR) (inactive status), thus she was removed from the SPI 
program. 

 

The complete ARPC/DPAAH evaluation, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit C. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

She is requesting that the Reserve points in question and 
subsequent bonus money awarded to her be reinstated. She worked 
hard, completing her nursing degree, while remaining a member of 
her original unit and accepted a commission at the local 
aeromedical evacuation squadron (AES). She made several 
attempts to in-process at the unit; however, it was not until 
she contacted the commander that she was told to report in Aug 
06. While the record reflects that she participated during the 
April unit training assembly (UTA), she was not permitted to 
drill until Aug 06. 

 


The Air Force’s position through the entire process has been 
simply that she was entitled to the bonus if she obtained the 
12 points in the appropriate specialty during her first year 
which she was not able to do because of the delay. In addition, 
she was advised that she could keep the bonus if she completed 
12 points in her current specialty. The flaw in the Air Force’s 
position is that they are arbitrarily ignoring the fact the she 
has already completed the 12 points in the 46N1 position, the 
specialty expressly stated in the bonus contract and the plain 
language of the bonus contract which requires her to complete 
her training in the 46N1 specialty. 

 

The applicant’s 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 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 office of primary responsibility and adopt its 
rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has 
not been the victim of an error or injustice. In addition, we 
note, the SPI contract and the subsequent agreed upon contract 
required the applicant, in addition to performing her training 
in a critically short wartime specialty, to complete a minimum 
of 50 retirement points (satisfactory year), including 12 days 
of active duty. In reviewing the applicant’s PCARS record of 
participation, it does not appear that she completed the 
required 12 days of active duty in accordance with the contract. 
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find 
no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this 
application. 

 

4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not 
been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel 
will materially add to our understanding of the issue(s) 
involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably 
considered. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 

 

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the 


application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2010-02322 in Executive Session on 27 January 2011, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 20 Jun 10, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, ARPC/DPAAH, dated 15 Jul 10, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Jul 10. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 27 Aug 10, w/atchs. 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair