RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2016-04912
 
						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His DD Form 4, Enlistment/Reenlistment Document Armed Forces of the United States, dated 10 Sep 14, be void and he be permitted to reenlist immediately.  

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His reenlistment contract is erroneous.  In 2012, he reenlisted for 4 years.  In 2014, his Military Personnel Section (MPS) notified him his reenlistment contract was lost and that he would incur a break in service if he did not reenlist immediately.  He reenlisted immediately; however, the 2012 reenlistment contract is in his records.  

The mistake precluded him from receiving a selective reenlistment bonus (SRB) that he would have received had he reenlisted on 18 Sep 16 upon the expiration of his 2012 reenlistment.  He would like the opportunity to reenlist as soon as possible and receive the SRB.    

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is in the Regular Air Force currently serving in the grade of staff sergeant (SSgt, E-5).  

Per the DD Form 4 dated 13 Jan 12, he reenlisted on 13 Jan 12 for a period of 4 years and 8 months.  

A subsequent DD Form 4 dated 10 Sep 14, shows he reenlisted on 10 Sep 14 for a period of 4 years.   

AF Form 3070, Record of Nonjudicial Punishment Proceedings (AB thru SSgt), dated 22 Sep 16, shows he received an Article 15 for using provoking and reproachful words towards an airman.  Punishment included a reprimand, reduction to the grade of senior airman (SrA, E-4) suspended through 11 Apr 17, and forfeiture of $125.00 pay per month for two months.   

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/DP2SSM recommends denial.  Based on the applicant’s Article 15 punishment not expiring until 11 Apr 17 and the change to the SRB list on 23 Feb 17, which removed the SRB authorization from his career field, he was never eligible to receive the SRB.  The earliest he could have reenlisted would have been when the Article 15 expired on 12 Apr 17, if he was selected as reenlistment eligible at the time.  

Based on a change of high year tenure (HYT) for SrA and below from 10 years of service to 8 years, his HYT was rolled back and a date of separation (DOS) of 30 Sep 14 was established.  On 1 Sep 13, he was promoted to the grade of SSgt and his HYT was adjusted to his 15 year point (10 Sep 16).  In accordance with the implementing policy for HYT, an airman subsequently promoted after the new HYT adjustments for any reason was required to execute a new contract to meet the new HYT.  The policy stated the previous contract would not be used to meet the new retainability requirement. 

In Mar 14, the MPS tried to re-update his previous 13 Jan 12 reenlistment with a DOS of 12 Jan 16 which was not authorized and created a mismatch between the personnel and finance systems.  The mismatch caused a system generated Case Management System (CMS) case and the MPS was advised, “Member’s ETS/DOS should be 30 Sep 14, MILPDS_ updated due to HYT rollback as a SrA, once promoted, previous dates do not get reinstated.”  On 10 Sep 14, he reenlisted for 4 years which established his current DOS of 9 Sep 18.  

On 9 Sep 16, he requested to reenlist on 24 Sep 16 with a Zone C, multiple 3.0, SRB for a period of 3 years and 23 months.  However, on 21 Sep 16, his commander denied him reenlistment eligibility.  The basis for the denial of reenlistment was his pending disciplinary action (Article 15 punishment).  Therefore, he was not eligible to reenlist and receive the SRB.   

A complete copy of the AFPC/DP2SSM 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 3 Oct 17 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 RECOMMENDS 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-2016-04912 in Executive Session on 13 Feb 18 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	 , Panel Chair
	 , Member
	 , Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2016-04912 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 7 Nov 16, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Excerpts of Personnel Records
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DP2SSM, dated 13 Sep 17.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 3 Oct 17. 

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 pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2016-04824, and that the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board's proceedings in the above entitled matter.