RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-05701 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her 8 Aug 12 enlistment contract authorizing her Zone C Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) be enforced or in the alternative be cancelled. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Her reenlistment contract authorizing an SRB was altered after signatures had been obtained by her and her commander. She was notified that she did not qualify for the SRB and the contract needed to be reaccomplished. She requested the contract be cancelled, but the contract was processed due to retainability for GI Bill benefits. She filed a complaint with the Inspector General (IG) regarding the removal of the SRB. The IG denied her request and referred her to the Board. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 29 Mar 00, the applicant commenced her enlistment in the Regular Air Force. On 27 Jun 06, she reenlisted for a period of 4 years and 12 months. On 1 Jun 10, the applicant again reenlisted for 4 years and 13 months with entitlement to a Zone C Multiple 7.0 SRB. On 8 Aug 12, the applicant reenlisted for 3 years and 34 months to obtain retainability for the Transfer of Education Benefits (TEB) with entitlement to a Zone C Multiple 7.0 SRB. Per the Department of Defense Instruction (DODI) 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, a service member may only receive one SRB per zone. On 27 Sep 12, the applicant was notified that her 8 Aug 12 reenlistment contract contained an erroneous entitlement to a second Zone C SRB and that the contract needed to be corrected. The applicant refused to reaccomplish the contract and requested the contract be voided. The applicant’s contract was processed with an annotation that the member refused to sign. On 21 Nov 12, the applicant filed a complaint with the IG alleging her 8 Aug 12 reenlistment contract was altered removing the SRB information without her knowledge and processed without her permission. On 9 Jan 13, AFPC/DPSOA informed the applicant she was not entitled to a second Zone C SRB and that only one SRB per Zone is allowed. She was made aware of the administrative error and that they were instructed to process the reenlistment contract with a statement the member refused to sign and that her reenlistment for TEB remain firm. On 18 Mar 13, the applicant appealed the decision. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. The applicant is requesting her original 8 Aug 12 reenlistment contract be honored and she receive payment for a second Zone C SRB. To approve this request would be outside of the DOD guidance and give her entitlement that her peers do not get. In the alternative she request the contract be voided. DPSOA supports voiding the contract if the applicant has not used TEB, and approval would revert her date of separation (DOS) back to 30 Jun 15. However, if the applicant has used TEB or does not desire to cancel the TEB the reenlistment would need to remain firm or be replaced with an extension of 14 months in order to obtain retainability that was needed for the TEB. A complete copy of the 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 21 Jul 14 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 warranting correction of the applicant’s enlistment contract to restore entitlement to a second Zone C selective reenlistment bonus (SRB). 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. While the applicant alternatively requests that the contested enlistment contract be cancelled, with the information presented, it is not possible to determine if such a correction would be adverse to the applicant. In this respect, we note the comments of the Air Force OPR indicating that they support such a correction, provided the applicant has not utilized the transferred Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits for which she reenlisted. Therefore, because this Board is precluded from taking an action that is adverse to an applicant, and we are unable to determine if the requested action would result in the recoupment of Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits because the applicant declined to submit a rebuttal to the advisory opinion, we are not convinced that corrective action is warranted. Should the applicant believe it would be in her best interest to request that her record be corrected to reflect that the contested contract was cancelled she could request reconsideration of this aspect of her case and include documentary evidence that would make clear whether or not the applicant’s dependents have utilized the transferred Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits we could make a reasonable determination as to whether or not there would be adverse effects to the applicant if her records were corrected in the manner that she requests. 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-2013-05701 in Executive Session on 13 Nov 14 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 10 Dec 13, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 3 Feb 14, w/atchs. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Jul 14.