RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-02258
		INDEX CODE:  128.05

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be given a constructive reenlistment to qualify for a higher Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The Military Personnel Flight (MPF) failed to provide counseling regarding a pending SRB change.  On 6 December 2001 he reenlisted and did not know of a reenlistment bonus effective January 2002.  

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force was on 12 November 1992.  

The applicant contracted his last enlistment on 6 December 2001 for a period of four (4) years in the grade of staff sergeant.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPAE recommended denial.  They indicated that the applicant contends the Military Personnel Flight (MPF) failed to provide counseling regarding a pending SRB change.  The applicant reenlisted 6 December 2001 for 4 years and 4 months.  On 17 January 2002, HQ USAF released a new SRB list and announced that affected personnel should be briefed.  The window to get the SRB recomputed was if member reenlisted between 2 and 16 January 2002.

The SRB review had not been announced as of the date the member reenlisted and therefore the MPF was not able to brief this member it had changed.

The evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 30 August 2002, a copy of the evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and response within thirty (30) days.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office. 

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPAE reviewed this case a second time due to the applicant’s contentions and they recommended denial.  They indicated that if a member is eligible to extend, they are never “forced” to reenlist.  This is a choice the member must make on their own.  All deployed locations have some type of PERSCO personnel to assist members with personnel issues.  The PERSCO member may not be co-located with each member, but each deployed member is assigned to a PERSCO team who is responsible for all actions relating to the member.  Therefore, either the PERSCO team or his home location should have been able to help member reenlist.  Lastly, all members who are deploying must have enough retainability at the time of deployment to cover the length of deployment as well as 30 additional days.  Member would not have been eligible to “wait for STOP LOSS” as he didn’t have the required retainability for the deployment.  The SRB review had not been announced as of the date member reenlisted and therefore the Military Personnel Flight (MPF) was not able to brief this member it had changed.

The evaluation is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL EVALUATION:

On 15 November 2002, a copy of the evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and response within thirty (30) days.  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 an injustice warranting a constructive reenlistment to qualify for a Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB).  The applicant’s numerous contentions regarding his December 2001 reenlistment and the failure of his Military Personnel Flight (MPF) to properly counsel him regarding a possible bonus are duly noted.  However, we note that the contested SRB list was released on 17 January 2002 and the applicant reenlisted on 6 December 2001.  Therefore, at the time he reenlisted, his MPF would not have been aware of the provisions of the pending SRB and thus were unable to counsel him regarding an SRB.  We note that the applicant apparently deployed in December 2001 and accordingly, he was required to have sufficient retainability to cover the deployment plus an additional 30 days.  It appears that based upon his enlistment of 8 February 1996 for a period of six years, he could have extended this enlistment to cover the deployment requirements since he had previously extended this enlistment only for a period of two months; however, it appears that he chose to reenlist rather than extend.  He provided no evidence that his MPF miscounseled him regarding his options of reenlisting versus extending.  It appears that the applicant made his decision to reenlist based upon his belief that deployed locations do not have personnel who are capable of reenlisting individuals; however, we note the Air Force indicates that all deployed locations have individuals assigned who deal with personnel issues.  The applicant has not provided documentary evidence that he was miscounseled that his deployed location would not have such personnel.  We, therefore, agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  In view of the foregoing and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling 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 an error or an 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 02-02258 in Executive Session on 17 December 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 8 July 2002, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 16 August 2002.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 August 2002.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 12 November 2002.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 November 2002.