RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-01879
				INDEX CODE:  100.06
				COUNSEL:  NONE

				HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her 1 August 1985 reenlistment be changed to a date after she received her 5 skill level so she could receive a Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

In the summer of 1985, she was forced to reenlist rather than extend to accept voluntary cross-training into Air Traffic Control.  She believes she may have been miscounseled by the retention counselor.  She wanted to extend her enlistment and reenlist after attaining her 5-level in Air Traffic Control and collect an SRB.  They are just now finding some cross-trainers were allowed to extend and collect a bonus after attaining the 5-level.  She was advised by a recent retiree that after her case was researched, her records were corrected.

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of master sergeant (MSgt).

On 1 August 1985, the applicant reenlisted in the Air Force for a period of four years.  The applicant initialed and signed the DD Form 4/2 acknowledging that she had carefully read the document, questions had been explained, she fully understood that only those agreements in Section B of the document or recorded on the attached annex would be honored and that any other promises or guarantees were made to her by anyone were written in the reenlistment contract (Exhibit B).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPAE states the applicant was approved for retraining into Air Traffic Control.  She reenlisted to obtain the retainability required for the retraining.  A review of the applicant’s request indicates she has not provided any documentation indicating she was miscounseled or was entitled to other benefits she did not receive.  DPPAE further states that without additional documentation from the applicant, it appears the case was handled in accordance with the regulations in effect at that time.  AFPC/DPPAE recommends the applicant’s request be denied.

A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 1 July 2004, for review and response.  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 our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  The applicant alleges she was miscounseled by the MPF; however, she has not provided evidence to support her allegation of miscounseling.  It appears she was required to reenlist in order to obtain the retainability required for the cross-training.  The applicant contends she was informed by a recently retired member who had a similar situation that her records were corrected; however, the applicant does not provide any further documentation to support this contention.  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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2004-01879 in Executive Session on 19 August 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, 6 Jun 04.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAE, dated 25 Jun 04.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Jul 04.