RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-04298

  						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected in order for his Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) to be restored.  

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His reenlistment in Feb 09 included a SRB with a five-year contract to remain in that career field.  After taking a Developmental Special Duty (DSD) assignment as the executive assistant to the wing’s command chief and subsequently receiving permanent change of station orders, he was notified that he owed $15,257.52 as a result of his SRB being recouped for the period of time when he was outside of his Duty Air Force Specialty Code (DAFSC) (after 90 days) as the executive assistant.  He further contends that Military Personnel Section (MPS) breakdowns were a major contributing factor.  The MPS did not update the Assignment Limitation Code (ALC) “O” that identified him as a SRB recipient and then changed his DAFSC without proper authority.  There is no record of him agreeing to change his DAFSC.  Had the MPS taken necessary precautions and notified him, his SRB would have been terminated in a timely manner preventing the significant debt or he would have returned to his DAFSC and the SRB would not have been interrupted, terminated, or recouped.  To support his request, the applicant provides several documents to include two letters dated 21 Apr 15: a Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) letter denying his waiver request yet outlining another administrative remedy available to the applicant; and a 627th Air Base Group Commander letter requesting the applicant’s SRB be reinstated and his current debt waived.  

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 19 Jan 00.

On 21 Feb 09, according to the DD Form 4, Enlistment/Reenlistment Document Armed Forces of the United States, the applicant reenlisted for five years with a Zone B, Multiple 4.5 bonus.  

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/DP3ST recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice.  Although the applicant contends he was not notified of the change of his DAFSC, there were no 3E2X1 positions on the wing command chief’s staff.  The applicant knew or should have reasonably known he was being paid the bonus for working in the 3E2X1 AFSC.  Although the ALC O used to identify airmen serving in SRBs was not updated, it is not used as a protection to airmen as the applicant is implying.  On the contrary, it is used for management and auditing purposes.  The applicant knew he should not be paid for a SRB when doing work outside the SRB career field.  The applicant points to the deployment exception in the AFI as applying to him; however, it’s clear the applicant nor his command thought he was deployed per his commander’s memorandum, paragraph four, that states, “Additionally, he remained available for deployment should the need have arisen” and the applicant’s statement on the AF Form 102 that he remained eligible for deployment.  The applicant requested to have DFAS remit his debt request and was denied on 21 Apr 15.  The applicant also refers to his selection to the wing command chief’s staff as a nomination process presumably referring to or comparing this job to the Air Force DSD positions that use a formal nomination process; however, this position is not a DSD position.  Although volunteers for the command chief’s staff at base level have to be vetted by their losing leadership, they do not go through the DSD nomination process.  

A complete copy of the AFPC/DP3ST 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 6 Apr 16 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 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.  Therefore, 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-2015-04298 in Executive Session on 9 Feb 17 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 7 Oct 15, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DP3ST, dated 1 Apr 16.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 6 Apr 16.

Pursuant to paragraph 1 of AFI 36-2603 (Title 32 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 865.1), it is certified that a quorum was present at the Board's review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board's proceedings in the above entitled matter.