RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-03821 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His reenlistment contract be nullified and he be granted an 
extension, contingent on reenlisting in the future, if necessary. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He was miscounseled regarding his Selective Reenlistment Bonus 
(SRB) when he reenlisted. He graduated from an Air Force 
training course and went to the Military Personnel Flight (MPF) 
for a mass out-processing briefing when he was pulled aside and 
informed he needed to reenlist right away. The MPF lost his 
original paperwork and had to reconstruct it; an airman assisted 
him in filling out the paperwork to the best of his knowledge to 
include the 6.5 SRB multiplier. He was not given adequate time 
to read the contract; he signed and initialed the contract 
without realizing on the bottom of the page in small print it 
read he was to receive a 3 multiplier. He admits to being the 
biggest culprit in this error for not thoroughly reviewing the 
contract before signing it; however, if he had paid attention to 
the details, he would not have reenlisted and would have waited 
to reenlist in Jul 11 when he hit “Zone B” and the 6.5 multiplier 
would have gone into effect. As it turns out, he may deploy this 
July and could have reenlisted without being taxed. It looks 
like he may have lost up to $44,000.00 based on this error. He 
bought a home and planned on using the money from his SRB to make 
some needed repairs. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained 
in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air 
Force. Accordingly, there is no need to recite these facts in 
this Record of Proceedings. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial. DPSOA states the applicant 
contends that anyone in his situation would have extended for the 
minimum required retainability and then waited to reenlist when 
he was in Zone B and eligible for the 6.5 multiplier. However, 
DPSOA notes the SRB list changes as much as 4 times a year and 
this logic does not always pay off. DPSOA also states that 
others in the same situation choose to reenlist in Zone A as he 
did and then hope their skill still has a Zone B multiplier of 
6.5 SRB when they become eligible to reenlist in Zone B. In this 
case, the applicant will be eligible to reenlist in Zone B as 
early as 14 Apr 12 if he is given a service direct retainability 
requirement on or after that date. 

 

The DPSOA complete evaluation is at Exhibit B. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The applicant responded by stating his original contentions; 
however, he points out this was the first time he was eligible to 
receive a bonus of any kind and he relied on the Reenlistment 
Section to provide him with proper counseling. He later realized 
he did not receive accurate answers to his questions. He admits 
to mistakenly looking over the 6-8 point font that showed his “3” 
multiplier. He provided a statement from the Reenlistment 
Section in his original submission; however, he notes that he 
acquired this statement in order for both sides of the story to 
be heard. However, the statement provided by AlC P is a complete 
fabrication of the truth. When he spoke with AlC P and TSgt S, 
they both agreed they had made a mistake and looked into ways to 
circumvent the situation; however, once he asked them for a 
written statement, they recanted their stories. The DPSOA 
advisory opinion states he would not know what the multiplier 
would be by the time Zone B hit for him in Jul 11; however, that 
is to the contrary, historical trends reveal his career field has 
never had a SRB below a “5” multiplier. It does not make sense 
for him to have taken a “3” multiplier, in Aug, just in case the 
SRB is removed. Had he been properly counseled, he would have 
waited until Jul 11 to reenlist. Lastly, he reiterates his 
family situation of purchasing a home and that by receiving the 


“6.5” SRB, he expected to be in a much better financial situation 
than where he ended up. 

 

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit D. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 found no evidence that the applicant was 
miscounseled or that he was treated differently than other 
members similarly situated. Therefore, 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 the absence of evidence to the contrary, we 
find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought. 

 

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 involved. 
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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-2010-03821 in Executive Session on 10 Feb 11, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

 


 

 

The following documentary evidence for Docket Number BC-2010-
03821 was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 4 Oct 10, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 18 Nov 10. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Dec 10. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 10 Jan 11. 

 

 

 

 

 

 PANEL CHAIR