RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-05701

					COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO 



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her 8 Aug 12 enlistment contract authorizing her Zone C 
Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) be enforced or in the 
alternative be cancelled.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Her reenlistment contract authorizing an SRB was altered after 
signatures had been obtained by her and her commander.  She was 
notified that she did not qualify for the SRB and the contract 
needed to be reaccomplished.  She requested the contract be 
cancelled, but the contract was processed due to retainability 
for GI Bill benefits.  She filed a complaint with the Inspector 
General (IG) regarding the removal of the SRB.  The IG denied 
her request and referred her to the Board.

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 29 Mar 00, the applicant commenced her enlistment in the 
Regular Air Force.  

On 27 Jun 06, she reenlisted for a period of 4 years and 
12 months.  

On 1 Jun 10, the applicant again reenlisted for 4 years and 
13 months with entitlement to a Zone C Multiple 7.0 SRB.  

On 8 Aug 12, the applicant reenlisted for 3 years and 34 months 
to obtain retainability for the Transfer of Education Benefits 
(TEB) with entitlement to a Zone C Multiple 7.0 SRB.

Per the Department of Defense Instruction (DODI) 1304.29, 
Administration of Enlistment Bonuses, Accession Bonuses for New 
Officers in Critical Skills, Selective Reenlistment Bonuses, and 
Critical Skills Retention Bonuses for Active Members, a service 
member may only receive one SRB per zone.

On 27 Sep 12, the applicant was notified that her 8 Aug 12 
reenlistment contract contained an erroneous entitlement to a 
second Zone C SRB and that the contract needed to be corrected.  
The applicant refused to reaccomplish the contract and requested 
the contract be voided.  The applicant’s contract was processed 
with an annotation that the member refused to sign.

On 21 Nov 12, the applicant filed a complaint with the IG 
alleging her 8 Aug 12 reenlistment contract was altered removing 
the SRB information without her knowledge and processed without 
her permission.  

On 9 Jan 13, AFPC/DPSOA informed the applicant she was not 
entitled to a second Zone C SRB and that only one SRB per Zone 
is allowed.  She was made aware of the administrative error and 
that they were instructed to process the reenlistment contract 
with a statement the member refused to sign and that her 
reenlistment for TEB remain firm.  

On 18 Mar 13, the applicant appealed the decision.


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of 
an error or an injustice.  The applicant is requesting her 
original 8 Aug 12 reenlistment contract be honored and she 
receive payment for a second Zone C SRB.  To approve this 
request would be outside of the DOD guidance and give her 
entitlement that her peers do not get.  In the alternative she 
request the contract be voided.  DPSOA supports voiding the 
contract if the applicant has not used TEB, and approval would 
revert her date of separation (DOS) back to 30 Jun 15.  However, 
if the applicant has used TEB or does not desire to cancel the 
TEB the reenlistment would need to remain firm or be replaced 
with an extension of 14 months in order to obtain retainability 
that was needed for the TEB. 

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit C.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the 
applicant on 21 Jul 14 for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit D).  As of this date, no response has been received by 
this office.



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 injustice warranting 
correction of the applicant’s enlistment contract to restore 
entitlement to a second Zone C selective reenlistment bonus 
(SRB).  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 (OPR) and adopt its rationale as the basis for 
our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error 
of injustice.  While the applicant alternatively requests that 
the contested enlistment contract be cancelled, with the 
information presented, it is not possible to determine if such a 
correction would be adverse to the applicant.  In this respect, 
we note the comments of the Air Force OPR indicating that they 
support such a correction, provided the applicant has not 
utilized the transferred Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits for which 
she reenlisted.  Therefore, because this Board is precluded from 
taking an action that is adverse to an applicant, and we are 
unable to determine if the requested action would result in the 
recoupment of Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits because the applicant 
declined to submit a rebuttal to the advisory opinion, we are 
not convinced that corrective action is warranted.  Should the 
applicant believe it would be in her best interest to request 
that her record be corrected to reflect that the contested 
contract was cancelled she could request reconsideration of this 
aspect of her case and include documentary evidence that would 
make clear whether or not the applicant’s dependents have 
utilized the transferred Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits we could 
make a reasonable determination as to whether or not there would 
be adverse effects to the applicant if her records were 
corrected in the manner that she requests.  Therefore, in the 
absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to 
recommend granting the requested relief.


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-2013-05701 in Executive Session on 13 Nov 14 under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 10 Dec 13, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 3 Feb 14,
	            w/atchs.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Jul 14.