RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-03821 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reenlistment contract be nullified and he be granted an extension, contingent on reenlisting in the future, if necessary. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was miscounseled regarding his Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) when he reenlisted. He graduated from an Air Force training course and went to the Military Personnel Flight (MPF) for a mass out-processing briefing when he was pulled aside and informed he needed to reenlist right away. The MPF lost his original paperwork and had to reconstruct it; an airman assisted him in filling out the paperwork to the best of his knowledge to include the 6.5 SRB multiplier. He was not given adequate time to read the contract; he signed and initialed the contract without realizing on the bottom of the page in small print it read he was to receive a 3 multiplier. He admits to being the biggest culprit in this error for not thoroughly reviewing the contract before signing it; however, if he had paid attention to the details, he would not have reenlisted and would have waited to reenlist in Jul 11 when he hit “Zone B” and the 6.5 multiplier would have gone into effect. As it turns out, he may deploy this July and could have reenlisted without being taxed. It looks like he may have lost up to $44,000.00 based on this error. He bought a home and planned on using the money from his SRB to make some needed repairs. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force. Accordingly, there is no need to recite these facts in this Record of Proceedings. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial. DPSOA states the applicant contends that anyone in his situation would have extended for the minimum required retainability and then waited to reenlist when he was in Zone B and eligible for the 6.5 multiplier. However, DPSOA notes the SRB list changes as much as 4 times a year and this logic does not always pay off. DPSOA also states that others in the same situation choose to reenlist in Zone A as he did and then hope their skill still has a Zone B multiplier of 6.5 SRB when they become eligible to reenlist in Zone B. In this case, the applicant will be eligible to reenlist in Zone B as early as 14 Apr 12 if he is given a service direct retainability requirement on or after that date. The DPSOA complete evaluation is at Exhibit B. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant responded by stating his original contentions; however, he points out this was the first time he was eligible to receive a bonus of any kind and he relied on the Reenlistment Section to provide him with proper counseling. He later realized he did not receive accurate answers to his questions. He admits to mistakenly looking over the 6-8 point font that showed his “3” multiplier. He provided a statement from the Reenlistment Section in his original submission; however, he notes that he acquired this statement in order for both sides of the story to be heard. However, the statement provided by AlC P is a complete fabrication of the truth. When he spoke with AlC P and TSgt S, they both agreed they had made a mistake and looked into ways to circumvent the situation; however, once he asked them for a written statement, they recanted their stories. The DPSOA advisory opinion states he would not know what the multiplier would be by the time Zone B hit for him in Jul 11; however, that is to the contrary, historical trends reveal his career field has never had a SRB below a “5” multiplier. It does not make sense for him to have taken a “3” multiplier, in Aug, just in case the SRB is removed. Had he been properly counseled, he would have waited until Jul 11 to reenlist. Lastly, he reiterates his family situation of purchasing a home and that by receiving the “6.5” SRB, he expected to be in a much better financial situation than where he ended up. The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ 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 found no evidence that the applicant was miscounseled or that he was treated differently than other members similarly situated. Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought. 4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issue involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. _________________________________________________________________ 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-2010-03821 in Executive Session on 10 Feb 11, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence for Docket Number BC-2010- 03821 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 4 Oct 10, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 18 Nov 10. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Dec 10. Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 10 Jan 11.