RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-00586
		INDEX CODE:  128.05

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED: NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlistment bonus he received of $5000 be changed to $15,000.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His original Expiration Term of Service (ETS) was 18 November 2004 with less than 16 years of service.  His Air Force Specialty (AFS) was on the Air National Guard (ANG) Enlisted Incentive Payment schedule for fiscal year (FY) 2005 incentives as a $15,000 reenlistment bonus.  He queried unit personnel in August 2004 on whether information had been received indicating whether or not the reenlistment bonus for his AFS would be going up.  He was told that the FY05 bonus information had not yet been published.  He checked back in September and was told the FY05 guidance had been received and his reenlistment bonus would not increase.  As the technician responsible for processing his reenlistment was about to go on terminal leave and would be available only one day per week for a limited time, he was encouraged to reenlist soon.  On 29 September 2004, he signed the reenlistment paperwork and asked once again, whether or not there were any changes to the amount authorized for his AFS.  He was told there were no changes.  On 16 November 2004, he found out that the amount was indeed different and that it had increased from $5000 to $15000.  As he was improperly advised on the amount of the bonus and the timing of his reenlistment, he requests his contract be re-accomplished under the FY05 ANG Incentive Program and he be awarded the additional $10,000 he would have received had he waited to reenlist.

In support of his appeal, the applicant has provided a personal statement and copies of the FY 05 ANG Incentive Program – Operational Guidance Change 1, dated 31 January 2005, and his ANG reenlistment bonus contract.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant began his military service on 10 September 1982.  He has been progressively promoted to the grade of master sergeant with a date of rank (DOR) of 1 November 2005.  He reenlisted on 29 September 2004 for a period of six years under the FY04 ANG Incentive Program as the FY05 ANG Incentive Program guidance was not released to the field until 31 January 2005.  He has served 13 years, 5 months, and 29 days as of March 2006.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

NGB/A1POF recommends denial.  A1POF states his complaint is based on after the fact information.  He reenlisted under the FY04 ANG Incentive Program which entitled him to a reenlistment bonus of $5,000.  The FY05 ANG Incentive Program Operational Guidance was not distributed to ANG units until 31 January 2005.  He reenlisted on 29 September 2004 under the FY04 guidelines and not the FY05 guidelines.  While the timing is unfortunate, he chose to reenlist before the FY04 Incentive Program expired.  There was no way for his unit to know about FY05 Program Guidance before it had been released.

A1POF’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant contends the ANG Incentive Operational Guidance was not released to the field on 31 January 2005 as stated in the advisory, but was actually distributed on 19 November 2004 with two subsequent changes sent out later in 2005.  

His original claim he reenlisted as a result of inaccurate and false information and at the convenience of the MPF was not addressed by the advisory.  His intent is not only to rectify his situation but to shed light on the fact members must be correctly informed by competent program managers from the Wing level up to the National Guard Bureau to ensure they are given the correct information so they can make the correct decision.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant's submission, we are not persuaded that his uncorroborated assertion he was miscounseled and led to reenlist early, thereby qualifying him for a significantly lower reenlistment bonus, sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air National Guard.  Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air National Guard office of primary responsibility and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of having suffered either an error or injustice and, in the absence of persuasive 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-2006-00586 in Executive Session on 1 August 2006, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 17 Feb 06, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, NGB/A1POF, dated 20 Jun 06.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Jun 06.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant, undated.