RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-04132 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Recoupment action of his Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB), in conjunction with his 29 Oct 12 Reenlistment of 4 years and 15 months, be terminated and he continue to receive the unpaid portions of the bonus. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was briefed by personnel assigned to the Military Personnel Flight (MPF) that when he reenlisted he would receive a SRB multiple of 7.0. Since he knew he would change from Zone A to Zone B before his actual reenlistment date he sought clarification from his MPF and questioned the interpretation of AFI 36-2606, Reenlistment in the United States Air Force, Chapter 4, para 4.15.2. This reference states that members must be in the same zone at the time of reenlistment, as the time of retraining approval. The MPF confirmed he would still be authorized the 7.0 multiple, as they would just go off what Zone B was at the time of his approved retraining package (Zone B at that time was also a 7.0 multiple). He researched this information with his MPF in good faith and was told he was good to go. On 29 Oct 12, his reenlistment contract listed a Zone B SRB with a 7.0 multiplier. Two months later, shortly after receiving his initial bonus payment, his previous MPF notified him that they needed to correct an error on his reenlistment contract. It turned out that he was not entitled to the 7.0 multiple, but rather a 3.5 multiple. DoD Instruction 1304.29, Administration of Enlistment Bonuses, Accession Bonuses for New Officers in Critical Skills, Selective Reenlistment Bonuses, and Critical Skills Retention Bonuses for Active Members, Enclosure 1, paragraph E1.3.6.2. clearly states: “A Service member who agrees to train and reenlist for military service in a skill that at the time of that agreement is designated for award of the SRB, may be paid the bonus for that skill at the award level in effect at the time of the agreement or at the award level in effect at the time of reenlistment, whichever is higher, on completion of qualification training and reenlistment in that skill, if the Service member is otherwise qualified for the bonus, even if that skill no longer is designated for award of the SRB at the time the Service member becomes eligible for payment of the bonus.” Based on these facts, he questions how an Air Force Instruction can restrict what the DoDI authorizes. Since he already received the initial bonus payment this error has forced him to incur a debt of $18,635.40. This has triggered a huge financial hardship for his family. Reversing this injustice is the right thing to do; otherwise, they will continue to feel this burden for the next 36 months. In support of his request, the applicant has provided a timeline of events, copy of his original DD Form 901, Reenlistment Eligibility Annex to DD Form 4, a copy of his original DD Form 4, Enlistment/Reenlistment Document Armed Forces of the United States, a letter from the applicant’s Commander, dated 7 Feb 13, a copy of the Results of the Remission’s Board, dated 17 Sep 13, and excerpts of multiple Air Force and Department of Defense instructions. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in the grade of Staff Sergeant. On 2 Dec 11, the applicant was approved for retraining for the 6C0X1 AFSC; he was in SRB, Zone A (17 months to 6 years). On 24 May 12, the applicant entered SRB, Zone B (6 years and 1 day to 10 years). On 19 Jun 12, the SRB list changed and the multipliers for AFSC 6C0x1 decreased from 7.0 for both Zones A and B to 5.0 for Zone A and 3.5 for Zone B. On 15 Oct 12, the applicant signed AF Form 901 which stated he would be paid a Zone B, Multiple 7.0 bonus based on 4 years of continued service in the 6C0x1 AFSC. On 29 Oct 12, the applicant reenlisted for 4 years and 15 months in the grade of Staff Sergeant of which 1 year and 3 months was considered Active Duty Obligation. On 19 Dec 12, the applicate signed a corrected AF Form 901 which stated he would be paid a Zone B, Multiple 3.5 bonus based on continued service in the 6C0x1 AFSC. On 17 Sep 13, the Secretary of the Air Force Remissions Board, reviewed his case and determined a remission was not in the best interest of the United States. While the error was not the applicant’s fault, the Board concluded that it would be inappropriate for him to be able to keep the overpayment under the circumstances of this case, particularly given the fact that the error was discovered so quickly. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. The applicant is currently entitled to a SRB of Zone B with a 3.5 multiple for reenlisting for 4 years. The applicant was in Zone A (17 months to 6 years) when he was approved for retraining; however, he entered Zone B (6 years and 1 day to 10 years) before his class start date. According to AFI 36-2606, Chapter 4, paragraph 4.15.2., Note: “The Airman must get retraining approval before the specialty termination or multiple reduction effective date and the Airman must be in the same SRB Zone on the date of reenlistment”. Based on the applicant’s change of Zones between his retraining approval and his actual reenlistment date, he was entitled to receive a SRB, Zone B, 3.5 multiple. The applicant wants to be paid for the SRB at a multiple of 7.0 that was erroneously listed on his 29 Oct 12 reenlistment documents. However, the applicant was never eligible to reenlist with a 7.0 multiple and he did not lose any benefits. Many Airmen are approved for retraining in one SRB zone and do not graduate until they are in the next zone; this is a regular occurrence and they do not receive the higher multiple in effect at the time of approved retraining. Current SRB guidance has many variables or limiting factors for SRB entitlements including the one identified in applicant’s situations. It would be unfair to approve his request and give him an entitlement the rest of the Airman in his or similar situations are not getting. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant refutes virtually every point made by the OPR and argues that they seem to have misunderstood his entire situation. When the OPR states that the applicant wants to be paid a 7.0 multiple; he would like to clarify the fact that he was paid a 7.0 multiple and now incurred an $18,000 debt. Additionally, the OPR stated that the “applicant’ did not lose any benefits he was eligible for”, when in reality he did. He received his initial payment and now that his remission case has been denied, he has to pay roughly $518 per month to pay back this debt. During this entire process, he relied on the professionals within the MPF to provide accurate, timely and relevant guidance. They told him that even though he was changing SRB Zones, he would still receive the 7.0 multiplier. Finally, as proof of the injustice that his case was not approved for remission, the applicant located a copy of a similar remission case, dated Feb 14, in which the Board did find it reasonable to believe the individual thought the multiplier was correct when he signed the contract; therefore that individual’s request for remission was approved. He only asks for the same consideration. In support of his rebuttal, the applicant provides a copy of a similar remission case and a copy of the SAF/MRBP decision on his remission case. ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: SAF/MRBB recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. While the applicant contends the MPF misled him to believe his SRB would be $18,635.40 with a 7.0 SRB multiplier, his actual SRB multiplier should have been 3.5. Although the Keesler reenlistment’s office made an error in having the applicant sign a reenlistment contract with the incorrect SRB multiplier, he was apprised of this error within a month of overpayment. They agree the error was not the applicant’s fault, but that does not warrant allowing the applicant to keep $18,635.40. Because the overpayment was discovered quickly and the applicant was notified of the error less than two months later, pursuant to AFI 36-3034, Remission of Indebtedness, remission of the debt is not appropriate. A complete copy of the SAF/MRBB evaluation is at Exhibit F. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In response to the SAF/MRBB Advisory, the applicant highlights a number of inconsistencies with their analysis. Specifically, in the OPR Analysis of the Applicant’s Contentions paragraph, there is missing information. There is no mention of why or who inputted the wrong multiple. He contends he took the AFI to the MPF at Keesler and asked which zone and multiple he was eligible for since he was just approved for retraining, but had switched zones. He was told he would still get the multiple “7” (for Zone B instead of A) since as the time of the retraining approval; the multiple was a “7” for both zones. So to clarify, he asked and presented the AFI and was still told he was authorized a multiple of “7”. In the Fact/Analysis paragraph, there is misstated information that he would like to clarify. The first sentence states that the Keesler MPF misled him to believe his SRB would be $18,635.40. That statement is not true; the Keesler MPF misled him to believe his SRB would be four times that: $74,541.60. The amount of $18,635.40 was half of his initial payment, since the multiple was changed to “3.5”. This paragraph also states that the Keesler MPF inputted the SRB multiple incorrectly which is true, but it was thought to be correct, even after he confided in them to check the AFI note about individuals that switch zones. The last thing in this paragraph that needs to be addressed is the statement that reads “The member was not available for contact until December 19, 2012.” This statement is completely false and he would like to ask that it be thrown out during the Board review as it makes it look as though it was his fault it took so long for the MPF to contact him. He was on duty and available from the time he reenlisted, 29 Oct 12 to the time he was notified of the error on 19 Dec 12. The only time he might not have been at work was to receive House Hold Good shipment due to PCS. The MPF at Maxwell never once tried to contact him, his supervisor, or his leadership prior to 19 Dec 12. Finally, both MPFs dropped the ball in this case and he strongly feels that the whole case is that of an injustice. His desired outcome is to keep the SRB multiple of “7”, as he signed a binding contract with the Government; however, at the very least the remission of the $18,635.40 is warranted. He relied upon the MPF for guidance, even presented them with the AFI himself, and still was informed he was eligible for the SRB Multiple of “7”. A complete copy of the applicant’s rebuttal is at Exhibit H. THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations. 2. The application was timely filed. 3. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice to warrant partial relief. After a thorough review of the applicant’s complete submission, to include his rebuttal comments, it appears the applicant was miscounseled by Military Personnel Flight (MPF) representatives indicating that he would be entitled to an SRB based on a 7.0 multiplier. The applicant states, and we believe, that he relied on the professionals within the MPF to provide accurate, timely and relevant guidance. While we note AFPC/DPSOA’s recommendation to deny the request, we believe it would be inequitable for him to suffer the consequences of a contractual error, over which he had no control. We give great deference to the expertise of the Air Force Remissions Board and we are not inclined to disturb the outcome in such a case simply because an applicant is not satisfied with the decision. The Board understands the rationale of the Remissions Board that while the error was not the applicant’s fault, it was identified relatively quickly and the applicant was notified of the error in a short period of time. However, we find the applicant exercised due diligence in seeking clarification regarding his zone of eligibility and Air Force officials had multiple opportunities to correctly advise the applicant and did not. We believe the applicant’s statement that repayment of this amount imposes a huge financial hardship on his family and find it in the interest of justice to grant relief. However, we do not believe favorable consideration of the applicant’s request to continue to receive the remaining unpaid portions of the SRB is appropriate. Accordingly, we recommend the applicant’s records be corrected to the extent indicated below. THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to the APPLICANT be corrected to show that his debt of $18,635.40 related to his 29 October 2012 Reenlistment of 4 years and 15 months is remitted. The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-04132 in Executive Session on 18 Aug 15, 22 Feb 16 and 14 Mar 16 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member All members voted to correct the records as recommended. The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-04132 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 24 Sep 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 16 Jan 15. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Mar 15. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, undated. Exhibit F. Memorandum, SAF/MRBB, dated 4 Mar 16. Exhibit G. E-mail, SAF/MRBC, dated 7 and 9 Mar 16. Exhibit H. Letter, Applicant, 10 Mar 16.