RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02217

  					COUNSEL:  NONE

					HEARING DESIRED:  NO 



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her six-year enlistment be changed to a four-year enlistment.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The only reason she enlisted for six years was to participate in 
the College Loan Repayment Program (CLRP).  She believes she was 
the victim of a commonly used tactic by recruiters to persuade 
enlistees into signing six-year enlistments without disclosing 
full requirements for program participation.  

Had the terms of the CLRP been fully disclosed, she would only 
have signed a four-year enlistment agreement since she was given 
two stripes for having a Bachelor’s Degree.  In addition, she is 
no longer in CLRP and therefore does not have to obligate 
herself to a second enlistment as part of the program. 

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on active duty as a Senior 
Airman (SrA/E-4).

On 30 Jul 12, she signed AF Form 3008, Supplement to Enlistment 
Agreement – United States Air Force, accepting the terms of her 
enlistment agreement which states in block E, “I am enlisting in 
the Regular Air Force in pay grade E-3 for six years of active 
duty.” 


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSIT recommends the best organization to provide a 
recommendation is Accessions at the Air Force Personnel Center.  
Per HQ AFRS/RSO, Recruiting Services’, Procedural guidance 
Message, eligible members participating in the Enlisted College 
Loan Repayment Program (ECLRP), must enlist for a four or six-
year term.   

The complete DPSIT evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPSIP recommends denial based on the applicant’s signed 
enlistment agreement and/or contract.  The member signed her AF 
Form 3008 dated 30 Jul 12.  Paragraph Block E, remarks states, 
“I am enlisting in the Regular Air Force in pay grade E-3 for 
six years of active duty.  I have been counseled on my 
entitlement grade and have no claim to a higher grade.  In 
addition, she initialed the College Loan Repayment Program 
(CLRP), statement of understanding acknowledging the government 
would repay a designated portion of any guaranteed student loan 
provided she maintains the account in good standing.  Further, 
she initialed the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) statement of 
understanding acknowledging monthly monetary contributions and 
that she must qualify for and enter a second term of active duty 
or enlistment to complete MGIB eligibility or forfeit 
contributions and eligibility.    

The complete DPSIP evaluation is at Exhibit D.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 4 May 15 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.  We took 
notice of the applicant’s complete submission, including 
personal statement and copies of emails, in judging the merits 
of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and 
recommendation of the Air Force offices of primary 
responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our 
conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of 
injustice.  While we acknowledge the applicant’s request to have 
her six-year enlistment changed, we also acknowledge the 
applicant initialed her enlistment contract indicating she 
understood the College Loan Repayment Program.  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 documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2014-02217 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 May 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSIT, dated 14 Jul 14.
	Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSIT, dated 18 Dec 14.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 May 15.