DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-03965
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF:
________________________________________________________________
THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His reenlistment contract be changed from a 6 year to a 4 year
enlistment.
________________________________________________________________
THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was advised in order to get the maximum selective
reenlistment bonus (SRB) for his career field; he would need to
reenlist for six years to receive the $90,000.00 bonus after
taxes. However, once he received his first payment, which was
less than what he was told, he inquired again and was advised by
a different counselor that he only needed to reenlist for
4 years to receive the maximum bonus.
He has made several requests to have his reenlistment contract
changed; to no avail.
In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a copy a letter
from the force support squadron, dated 15 Oct 10 and a copy of
his enlistment contract.
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at
Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted
from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the
letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force.
________________________________________________________________
THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial, stating, in part, the applicant
reenlisted on 29 Sep 08 for 6 years with entitlement to a zone C
multiple 7.0 SRB. He received the maximum SRB payment of
$90,000.00 minus taxes. If the applicant had reenlisted for
4 years, he would have received $5000.00 to $6,000.00 short of
the maximum of $90,000.00; finance determines the exact amount
of SRB payment.
The complete AFPC/DPSOAA evaluation is at Exhibit C.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the
applicant on 14 January 2011 for review and comment within
30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this
office (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. 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
their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the
applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find
no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this
application.
________________________________________________________________
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.
________________________________________________________________
2
The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket
Number BC-2010-03965 in Executive Session on 7 July 2011, under
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 18 Oct 10, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 21 Dec 10.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Jan 11.
Panel Chair
3
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-03821
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. He admits to being the biggest culprit in this error for not thoroughly reviewing the contract before signing it; however,...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-03182
DFAS-JECC/DE states the applicant reenlisted on 3 Nov 03, entitling him to the SRB which was established in the amount of $60,000.00. 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 offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 28...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00658
His reenlistment date reflect his original date of reenlistment of 31 Oct 11. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of responsibility which is included at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an injustice. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05216
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-05216 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) be corrected to a 5.0 multiple, instead of a 2.0 multiple. The applicant reenlisted on 11 Dec 12 and his enlistment contract erroneously indicated an SRB multiple of 5.0 when the correct multiple should have been 2.0. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 16 Dec 13.
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03879
________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The Military Personnel Flight (MPF) reenlistment office altered his DD Form 4/1 to reflect 8 Oct 2007 instead of the date he reenlisted (1 Oct 2007). The problem was the applicant's DOS/ETS was 7 Dec 2011 in DFAS system and 7 Jan 2012 in MILPDS (which coincides with the 8 Oct 2007 reenlistment for four years and three months); the 8 Oct 2007 reenlistment date was verified from his contract located in...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04703
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-04703 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to reflect he received a Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) for his 3 Oct 11 reenlistment. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2008-00485
However, after meeting the requirements of his contract and submitting his request for the bonus through his Military Personnel Flight (MPF), the Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC) denied his request and would not honor his contract citing that in accordance with Air Force Instruction 36-2606, he was not entitled to receive a bonus even though his contract stated he was. He should receive the SRB indicated in his reenlistment contract even though the Air Force is denying payment due to their...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-02862
In support of his appeal, the applicant provides expanded statements, documentation pertaining to his indebtedness, previous Board decisions, and other documents associated with the matter under review. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force, which are attached at Exhibits C and D. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOA recommends...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-03965
On 17 Jul 1995, the applicant was notified by his commander that he was not recommending him for reenlistment in the Air Force. DPSOR states that the applicant did not provide any evidence of an error or injustice that occurred in the discharge processing. Based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge to include his separation code was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the discretion...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 03965
On 17 Jul 1995, the applicant was notified by his commander that he was not recommending him for reenlistment in the Air Force. DPSOR states that the applicant did not provide any evidence of an error or injustice that occurred in the discharge processing. Based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge to include his separation code was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the discretion...