RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-02924 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her high year tenure (HYT) date be changed from 25 July 2014 to 25 July 2016. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Her record shows a HYT of 25 July 2014; however, she was recently informed that she is authorized an exception to policy based on her Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC). Her AFSC pays a selective reenlistment bonus (SRB) which extends her HYT from 8 to 10 years. Due to this error and incorrect counseling, she missed the opportunity to reenlist during her period of eligibility and lost a 4.0 SRB. In support of her appeal, the applicant provides a personal statement and a service information print-out. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is active duty Air Force serving in the grade of senior airman. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this case are contained in the letters prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and listed at Exhibits C and D. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial. On 19 December 2011, the Air Force announced the HYT for senior airmen would be reduced from 10 to 8 years. However, the change was phased in to allow most airmen two opportunities to test for promotion. The HYT for senior airman with a total active federal military service dated (TAFMSD) of 30 September 2005 or earlier remained at the original date 10 years or was adjusted to 29 September 2013. In the applicant’s case, her TAFMSD is 25 July 2006; therefore, her HYT was adjusted to 25 July 2014. The Personnel Service Delivery Memorandum outlines reenlistment eligible first term airmen who are authorized a Zone A SRB will have their HYT adjusted to 10 years of service, provided the reenlistment/extension occurs before they complete 6 years TAFMS. The applicant executed a 2-month extension on 2 October 2012 to qualify for an assignment. She contends she received incorrect counseling which resulted in her missing the opportunity to reenlist when originally eligible. She also contends her HYT should be extended because her AFSC pays an SRB. HYT is only adjusted on qualifying airman who execute the appropriate reenlistment/extension before completing 6 years TAFMS. There is no evidence she attempted to reenlist or extend to qualify for the Zone A SRB during her period of eligibility. Therefore, her HYT is correct. Additionally there is no evidence submitted to support that she was miscounseled. The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial. The applicant enlisted in the Air Force for 6 years on 26 July 2006 establishing her date of separation (DOS) as 24 July 2012. She extended to obtain required retainability for 11 months establishing a DOS of 25 July 2013. She has extended three more times since then and her current DOS is 24 July 2014. She contends her HYT should be extended to 10 years versus 8 years due to her SRB payable. However, AFI 36-2606, Reenlistments in the United States Air Force, state first term airmen in SRB skills authorized to receive a Zone A SRB may reenlist for periods exceeding their HYT, provided the reenlistment occurs before they complete 6 years on active duty and do not establish a DOS exceeding 10 years of service. Those first term airman in SRB skills authorized a Zone A SRB have an 8 year HYT upon entering the Air Force. The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 10 January 2014 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E). 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. The applicant's complete submission was thoroughly reviewed and her contentions were duly noted. However, we do not find the applicant’s assertions and the documentation presented in support of her appeal sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by Air Force offices of primary responsibility. Therefore, we agree with their opinion and recommendation and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. 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 actionable 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-02924 in Executive Session on 11 March 2014 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-02924 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 12 Feb 13, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 8 Jul 13. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 16 Dec 13. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Jan 14. 1 2