RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02872 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be paid the multiple 7.0 Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) for his 1 November 2012 reenlistment. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was approved for retraining in SRB Zone A. According to AFI 36-2606, Reenlistment in the United States Air Force, he was locked in at that rate. While awaiting a class date, the SRB list changed and he crossed into Zone B. The AFI states that if you cross zones after being approved, but before you reenlist; you are no longer locked into the previous SRB zone. At the time of his retraining approval, the SRB multiple for zone A and zone B was 7. Because he changed zones in the process, he was given the zone B rate at the time of reenlistment, which was 3.5. He was approved for retraining into a critical Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) and still became a productive member of that AFSC. Ultimately, this affects those volunteering for the critical career fields. The money is already appropriated for the SRB. The Air Force is picking and choosing who gets the bonus with the wording of the current AFI. It should be a fair system for everyone. 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 staff sergeant. On 29 October 2012, the applicant signed AF Form 901, Reenlistment Eligibility Annex to the DD Form 4, acknowledging under Section E. Certification by Members Authorized Selective Reenlistment Bonus, that he would be paid a Zone B, Multiple 3.5 bonus based on 4 years of continued service in the 6C031 AFSC. On 1 November 2012, he reenlisted for 4 years and 20 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/DPSOA recommends denial. The applicant applied for retraining on 18 January 2012 and was approved for the 6COX1 AFSC on 1 February 2012. He was provided a class seat on 1 February 2012 with a Class Start Date (CSD) of 27 August 2012 and Class Graduation Date (CGD) of 23 October 2012. Per AFI 36-2606, paragraph 4.15.2. states members who are approved for retraining get the multiple in effect at the time of approved retraining even if the multiple is reduced or terminated. However, the "Note" in paragraph 4.15.2 states, "The Airman must get retraining approval before the specialty termination or multiple reduction effective date and the Airman must be in the same SRB zone on the date of reenlistment." The applicant's SRB zone A window ended on 21 August 2012 and his zone B window of 6 to 10 years started 22 August 2012. When the applicant graduated retraining technical school on 23 October 2012, he was in his zone B SRB window and because he was no longer in zone A, he was only eligible for the SRB multiple in affect at the current time which was 3.5. The SRB list changed effective 19 July 2012 and the multiple for the 6COX1 AFSC went from 7.0 for both the A and B zones down to 5.0 for the A zone and down to 3.5 for the B zone. Although the applicant disagrees with the SRB policy, he provides no evidence to support his contention the policy is unjust. Many airmen are approved in one SRB zone and do not graduate from technical school within the same zone. Not only do airmen change zones before graduating, but not all retrainees are eligible to reenlist within the 30 days after technical school, which is also a requirement, and they may end up eligible for the higher multiple that was in effect when they were approved for retraining. SRB allocations take into effect all of the eligibility factors within the current guidance which limit the amount of SRBs provided. Not everyone who reenlists or extends in a SRB AFSC is eligible for the SRB even though they are in a SRB zone and the AFSC has an SRB entitlement. AFI 36-2606, has many limiting factors or rules of engagement that must be met to be eligible for the SRB. The applicant references fairness; however, approval of this request would give him an entitlement to which other airmen in similar situations are not. The complete DPSOA evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant states that he provided documents showing that he has contacted AFPC regarding his questions; however, he has received no response. Why does it matter if you cross zones if both zones were a 7? He would think there would have to be an exception to policy if both the multipliers were a 7 at the time of approval. He believes the language used in the advisory is strategically placed to make things appear in their favor. The advisory also states there would be concerns with fairness with his peers if his application were approved. This only reiterates that this is a common problem that affects members. Perhaps his application will set a precedent that causes the AFI to be changed to make it fair to everyone. The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E. 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, to include his response to the Air Force advisory, 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 and find that the applicant has not provided proof of either an error or an injustice. In the absence of evidence the applicant was treated differently than others similarly situated, we find no equitable basis to grant the relief sought in this application. 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-2014-02872 in Executive Session on 24 June 2015 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 3 Jun 14. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 24 Mar 15, w/atchs. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 May 15. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant’s Response, 8 May 15.