RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-01890 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His 26 Mar 09 extension be cancelled and he be allowed to 
reenlist with a Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB). 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He was not afforded the option of a waiver to reenlist after his 
technical school training to obtain the required retainability 
in the Air Force. 

 

When he was accepted for retraining, he was informed that his 
new career field did not have an SRB and that his only option 
was to reenlist to stay eligible for retraining. He believes he 
was miscounseled by his military personnel flight. 

 

His extension was processed for 44 months, which included the 
time needed to complete his technical training plus an 
additional three years of retainability. 

 

In support of the request, the applicant provides copies of his 
AF IMT Form 11411, Extension or Cancellation of Extensions of 
Enlistment in the Regular Air Force/Air Force Reserve, and an 
extract from AFI 36-2110, Assignments. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant entered the Regular Air Force on 5 Jun 01. He was 
progressively promoted to the grade of staff sergeant with a 
date of rank of 1 Nov 06. 

 

The applicant was approved for retraining on 7 Jan 09 and needed 
to obtain 36 months of retainability from his retraining class 
graduation date of 7 Jan 10 to keep his approved retraining. 
At the time of his extension request, his date of separation 
(DOS) was 6 Feb 10; however his extension on 26 Mar 09 for 
36 months, established a new date DOS of 6 Feb 13. 


 

Other relevant facts are contained in the Air Force evaluation 
prepared by HQ AFPC/DPSOA, which is at Exhibit C. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

HQ AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial. DPSOA states they believe the 
applicant is confusing Rule 3 of Table 2.7, which allows first-
term airmen to receive a retainability suspense delay waiver 
until they receive a three-skill level. The applicant is not a 
first-term airman. Rule 1 delays are for airmen who are already 
serving in the SRB skill and by being required to get the 
retainability without a delay (if eligible) would be entitled to 
a lesser amount than if the delay was granted. The applicant 
did not have the SRB skill and was not entitled to any amount of 
an SRB at the time the retainability was required. 

 

The complete HQ AFPC/DPSOA 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 5 Nov 10 for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit D). As of this date, this office has not received a 
response. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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. 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 and adopt its 
rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not 
been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, in the 
absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to 
recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 


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 Docket Number 
BC-2010-01890 in Executive Session on 7 December 2010, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 6 Jun 10, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSOA, dated 8 Sep 10. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Nov 10. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair