RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-04002 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her enlistment contract, executed on 11 Nov 14 [sic], for a period of four years be changed to a six-year contract. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She was recruited to be a flight engineer and told that she would receive a $15,000.00 bonus as an incentive to spend two years activated completing the training. However, she was never made aware that she needed to reenlist for six years to receive the full benefit. She was advised the minimum requirement to retrain was a three year reenlistment so she reenlisted for four years. When she checked on her bonus she was told that she was receiving $7,500.00 because she did not reenlist for six years. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: According to DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, issued in conjunction with her 8 Jan 12 separation, in Item 6, Reserve Obligation Termination Date is 18 Jun 16. On 8 Jan 12, the applicant was released from active duty and transferred to the Air Force Reserve. She was credited with 3 years, 4 months, and 27 days of active duty. On 11 Jan 14, the applicant reenlisted in the Air Force Reserve for a period of four years. The applicant is currently serving in the Air Force Reserve in the grade of Staff Sergeant (SSgt). AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFRC/A1K recommends denial indicating based on the applicable Air Force Instructions pertaining to this case, the applicant is not eligible to receive an incentive bonus based on her Palace Chase contract. The applicant’s current DD Form 4, Section 5 reflects Enlistment Date of 11 November 2014 versus 11 January 2014; which is reflected in Sections 13c, 14f, 18b and 18f. A1K notes after a careful review of the documentation provided by the applicant and documents retrieved from Personnel Records Display Application (PRDA) and Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS), it was discovered the applicant is under a Palace Chase contract which doesn’t expire until 14 March 2017. IAW AFI 36-2638 Para 1.2. Prior Service Enlistment Incentive Eligibility Criteria, Member: Para 1.2.4., is not enlisting under the PALACE CHASE Program. Furthermore, MilPDS currently reflects an Expiration Term of Obligation (ETO) as 11 August 2016; the applicant should have enlisted into the USAFR to cover the Palace Chase contract period IAW AFI 36-3205, Para 1.10 1.10.1., 1.10.10.3 and/or IAW AFI 36-2612 Para 3.7.2. The complete A1K evaluation is at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 30 Jun 15 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). 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 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 Reserve office of primary responsibility (OPR) and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice. Though we commend the applicant for continued service in the Air Force Reserve, current regulations prohibit Palace Chase personnel, such as the applicant, from receiving enlistment incentives. Additionally, we have been advised the applicant’s enlistment contract reflected an enlistment date of “11 Nov 14;” however, her contract was executed on “11 Jan 14” her actual date of enlistment and will be corrected administratively In Accordance With (IAW) AFI 36-2612, United States Air Force Reserve (USAFR) Reenlistment and Retention Program. In view of the above and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2014-04002 in Executive Session on 30 Jul 15 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 26 Sep 14, w/atch. Exhibit B. Pertinent Excerpts from Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFRC/A1K, dated 18 Jun 15. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Jun 15.