RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02330 

COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

Her reenlistment date be changed from 20 June 2011 to 3 June 2011 
so she can be eligible for a Zone C Reenlistment Bonus under the 
Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) program. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

She attempted to start the reenlistment process in April of 2011 
when she was told her date of separation (DOS) was in June 2012 
rather than May 2012. This information was in error and her DOS 
was subsequently corrected to 5 May 2012. When she again 
attempted to reenlist, she was told she could not reenlist unless 
she had a service directed retainability reason. While going 
through retraining at Keesler Air Force Base, Mississippi, she 
was told she would be eligible to reenlist once she completed 
training and arrived at her new duty station. She was later told 
this information was incorrect as she needed to be within 90 days 
of her DOS in order to reenlist. No other options to reenlist 
before this 90-day window were available to consider. 

 

She subsequently decided to transfer education benefits (TEB) 
under the Post 9/11 GI Bill to her son, but was told she needed 
to reenlist in order to transfer her benefits. In compliance, 
she reenlisted on 20 June 2011. This date was 15 days beyond her 
eligibility window for a Zone C SRB. Had she been made aware 
that her TEB reenlistment could have qualified her for an SRB, 
she would have requested the TEB in May 2011 and reenlisted on 
3 June 2011 in order to qualify for the bonus. She attempted to 
resolve this matter with the Air Force Personnel Center, but was 
told she would have to appeal to the AFBCMR. 

 

In support of her appeal, the applicant provides copies of 
several electronic communications. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 


STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in 
the grade of technical sergeant (E-6). On 20 June 2011, she 
reenlisted for a period of five years and ten months. 

 

The remaining relevant facts, extracted from the applicant’s 
master personnel records, are contained in the evaluation by the 
Air Force office of primary responsibility at Exhibit C. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial. DPSOA states that it is their 
opinion that the applicant was fully aware of TEB and the 
retainability associated with the program since she had two 
previous TEB requests terminated due to her failure to get the 
retainability she acknowledged was required. On 18 August 2009, 
the applicant initiated her first request for TEB. Also on that 
date, the Total Force Service Center-SA (TFSC-SA), advised the 
applicant that her application was received and briefed her on 
the associated Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) of four 
years which will expire on 4 August 2013. She was further 
instructed to contact her military personnel squadron (MPS) to 
obtain the retainability and the attached Statement of 
Understanding (SOU). On 28 September 2009, the applicant signed 
the SOU and attached it to the case file. Also, on this date, 
the TFSA-SA acknowledged receipt of the SOU and reminded the 
applicant of the retainability requirement. On 30 October 2009, 
her request for TEB transfer was closed by the TFSC-SA because of 
her failure to obtain the retainability. On 19 November 2009, 
the applicant initiated her second TEB request. Again, the TFSC-
SA requested she complete the required retainability within 
30 days (by extending or reenlisting through 16 November 2013) 
and requested she also complete the SOU. Once again, the 
applicant failed to complete the retainability and/or SOU; 
therefore, her application for TEB was closed on 8 January 2010. 
On 8 June 2011, the applicant initiated her third TEB request and 
finally completed the SOU and associated retainability. Her TEB 
was subsequently approved on 30 June 2011. Execution of TEB is a 
service-directed reason and each applicant chooses when he/she 
will exercise this entitlement. 

 

DPSOA indicates the applicant’s contention that she was not fully 
aware of the retainability for TEB and, had she known, she would 
have done so, is without merit. She clearly demonstrated her 
knowledge of the TEB program and retainability requirement by 
previously processing two TEB requests. The third and final 
request, which was approved when she met the retainability, was 
not initiated until after the applicant’s Zone C SRB eligibility 
window had passed. She was provided two previous opportunities 
to qualify for the TEB (with or without SRB entitlement) and she 
chose not to execute those opportunities. In addition, she had 


sufficient time to make her third TEB request (with qualifying 
SRB) before closure of her Zone C, SRB (4 June 2011). 

 

The complete AFPC/DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit B. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant 
on 29 July 2011 for review and response within 30 days (Exhibit 
C). As of this date, this office has received no response. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 an 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 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 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-2011-02330 in Executive Session on 6 March 2012, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 


 

The following documentary evidence was considered for AFBCMR 
Docket Number BC-2011-02330: 

 

Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 23 Jun 11, w/atchs. 

Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 25 Jul 11. 

Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Jul 11. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair