RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-01689
		INDEX CODE:  

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  28 NOVEMBER 2005

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) be changed from a 2.5 multiplier to a 5.5 multiplier.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was eligible to reenlist in May 2003 and was prevented from doing so until December 2003.  During this time his SRB was reduced from a 5.5 multiplier to a 2.5.  The only reason he was prevented from reenlisting is because he was falsely accused of an assault.  He was found not guilty in a special court-martial.

He had done all the paperwork and was ready to reenlist on 1 May 2003. He doesn’t think it is fair to be falsely accused of something and lose out on his bonus.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a copy of an AF Form 1359, Report of Result of Trial showing that he was found not guilty of the charge of assault and its two specifications on 2 October 2003.

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in the grade of staff sergeant.

On 17 April 2003, applicant’s commander originally nonselected him for reenlistment because he was under investigation.  His commander later changed the reenlistment eligibility code to 2X (First-term, second term, or career airman considered but not selected for reenlistment under the SRP, in accordance with AFI 36-2606, Table 3.2, Item 23), in May 2003.  Charges were preferred against the applicant on 2 September 2003 for two specifications of assault that took place on or about 29 March 2003 in Colorado Springs, CO.  The AF 1359, Report of Result of Trial, provided by the applicant indicates a special court-martial found him not guilty of both specifications charged under Article 128, UCMJ, on 2 October 2003.  Following the court’s findings of not guilty, the applicant’s commander selected him for reenlistment on 8 October 2003.  The applicant reenlisted for a period of five years on 5 December 2003 and acknowledged at that time he would be paid a Zone B Multiple 2.0 bonus.  Information provided to AFMPC/JA by the applicant’s unit indicates the SRB multiplier for his Air Force Specialty changed from a 5.5 multiplier to a 2.0 multiplier in June 2003.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/JA states the applicant was automatically disqualified from reenlisting when he sought to do so in May 2003 as a result of the investigation into his alleged criminal misconduct and pending court-martial charges.

To obtain relief, the applicant must show by a preponderance of the evidence that there exists some error or injustice warranting corrective action by the Board.  Nothing in the information provided from the applicant (or otherwise obtained) suggests any impropriety or unfairness meriting the relief the applicant seeks.  By any measure, it appears the investigation was properly conducted, resulting in the applicant’s automatic ineligibility for reenlistment.  The charges were ultimately referred to trial where the special court-martial was not convinced that the applicant’s charges were proven beyond a reasonable doubt.  There is no evidence the applicant was falsely accused, as he contends.  Once the trial was over, the applicant’s reenlistment eligibility code was properly changed to allow his reenlistment.

Lastly, reenlistment bonuses have been traditionally reviewed by considering basic contract law principles.  The status of the member at the time of reenlistment controls.  They believe the whole statutory and regulatory bonus scheme is to provide an incentive to reenlist in certain critical specialties.  In their opinion, if the member was not eligible for the SRB at the time he and the Air Force agreed to reenlistment, it was not part of the consideration for the agreement.  The applicant acknowledged in his reenlistment documents that he was only entitled to the multiple 2.0 bonus available in December 2003 when he agree to serve for an additional five years.  Therefore, they do not believe an error or injustice occurred and recommend denial of applicant’s request.

A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPAE states SRB is based on the date a member reenlisted and this member was not eligible to reenlist prior to the SRB changing.  Therefore, they recommend denial of applicant’s request.

A complete copy of their evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 13 August 2004, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 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 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 and adopt their rationale as the basis for the 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 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 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 this application, AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2004-01689, in Executive Session on 27 April 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 4 Apr 04 w/atch.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 30 Jul 04.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 3 Aug 04, w/atchs.
	Exhibit E.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 Aug 04.