RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
DOCKET NUMBER: 98-0233 FFB 2 5 yJ-99
IN THE MATTER OF:
I
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
Applicant requests that the one-month extension of his enlistment
be canceled and he be given the opportunity to reenlist in his
current Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) prior to completing ten
years in the service. Applicant's submission is at Exhibit A.
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request
and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the
application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinion was
forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D)
As of this date, no response has been received by this office.
After careful consideration of applicant's request and the
available evidence of record, we find insufficient evidence of
error or injustice to warrant corrective action. The facts and
opinions stated in the advisory opinion appear to be based on the
evidence of record and have not been rebutted by applicant.
Absent persuasive evidence applicant was denied rights to which
entitled, appropriate regulations were not followed, or
appropriate standards were not applied, we find no basis to
disturb the existing record.
Accordingly, applicant's request is denied.
The Board staff is directed to inform applicant of this decision.
Applicant should also be informed that this decision is final and
will only be reconsidered upon the presentation of new relevant
evidence which was not reasonably available at the time the
application was filed.
Members of the Board Mr. Benedict A. Kausal IV, Mr. Patrick R.
Wheeler, and Mrs. Margaret A. Zook considered this application on
5 Jan 99 in accordance with the provisions of Air Force
Instruction 36-2603 and the governing statute, 10 U.S.C. 1552.
'BENEDICT A. KAUSAL IV
Panel Chair
Exhibits :
A. Applicant's DD Form 149
B. Available Master Personnel Records
C. Advisory Opinion
D. SAF/MIBR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinion
DEPARTMENT OF THE A I R FORCE
HEADQUARTERS A l d FORCE P E R S O N N E L C E N T E R
R A N D O L P H AIR FORCE B A S E TEXAS
1 8 SEP 1998
MEMORANDUM FOR THE AFBCMR
FROM: HQ AFPCDPPAE
550 C Street West Ste 10
Randolph AFB TX 78 150-47 12
SUBJECT: Amlication for Correction of Militarv Records
The applicant is requesting cancellation of the one month extension and the opportunity
to reenlist prior to ten years.
The applicant alleges miscounseling by the Military Personnel Flight (MPF) regarding
the option to reenlist. However, he has provided no evidence (Le. statement from MPF
counselor) to collaborate this allegation. In fact, the evidence submitted indicates the contrary.
The applicant initialed the applicable items in sections VIII and IX of the attached AF Form
14 1 1, Extension of Enlistment Contract. One item reads “I have considered the advantages of
reenlisting instead of executing this extension. I understand..? Another states “I know that I
can reenlist rather than extend, but I have elected to execute this extension instead of
reenlisting.” Both of these statements clearly indicate the applicant was aware of the
reenlistment options. Based on the above, recommend disapproval of the applicant’s request.
Chief, Reenlistments & Retraining
Dir of Personnel Program Mgmt
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). Applicant signed the form on 22 Sep 94, indicating his acknowledgment of nonselection and his intent to appeal the decision.
The appropriate Air Force off ice evaluated applicant I s request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C) . The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). .” Another states “I know that I can reenlist rather than extend, but I have elected to execute this extension instead of reenlisting.” Both of these statements clearly indicate the applicant was aware of the reenlistment options.
___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was told the ADSC for C-27 training would be lowered from three years to one year by HQ AFPC because the C-27 would be terminated from the Air Force inventory in January 1999; that this reduction was designed to make the commitment commensurate with the existence of the C-27 program; that he volunteered and was accepted for assignment to fly C-27s at Howard AB, Panama, under that understanding;...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1999-03003
___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was told the ADSC for C-27 training would be lowered from three years to one year by HQ AFPC because the C-27 would be terminated from the Air Force inventory in January 1999; that this reduction was designed to make the commitment commensurate with the existence of the C-27 program; that he volunteered and was accepted for assignment to fly C-27s at Howard AB, Panama, under that understanding;...
___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was told the ADSC for C-27 training would be lowered from three years to one year by HQ AFPC because the C-27 would be terminated from the Air Force inventory in January 1999; that this reduction was designed to make the commitment commensurate with the existence of the C-27 program; that he volunteered and was accepted for assignment to fly C-27s at Howard AB, Panama, under that understanding;...
Finally, if the applicant remains a senior airman, he may or may not be allowed to reenlist when his current enlistment expires. For example, under AFI 36-2606, Reenlistment in the United States Air Force, paragraph 1.13, he may appeal any denial of reenlistment to the Secretary of the Air Force. A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and provided a three-page response (see Exhibit F).
In addition, the Air Force Training Management System (AFTMS) assigned an erroneous 24-months ADSC for the training. Finally, upon completing the training he was presented a signed AF Form 63 advising him that his USAFWS ADSC was 13 June 1999 (approximately two years from completion of the training). Notwithstanding this documentation, the authenticity of which is not questioned, the advisory writer claims that applicant incurred a five-year ADSC: (1) because “we believe he was fully aware...
Despite this, the applicant claims the MPF stated he had to accept the C-141 training because he had three and one-half years remaining on his UPT ADSC. Despite Block II of the AF Form 63 not being initialed, the applicant signed the AF Form 63 reflecting the correct ADSC and thus accepted the ADSC (Exhibit C with Attachments 1 through 4). In this case, however, the applicant has presented persuasive evidence that he agreed to the C-141 IQT training under the assumption that he would incur...
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant’s request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). Contrary to what the applicant states in her request, the "2Q" code was not assigned simply to prevent her immediate reenlistment, but rather to reflect the fact that she was separated with an unfitting medical condition under provisions of AFR 35-4 and the disability evaluation sys- tem. Page 2 AFBCMR Case #...
Had the applicant completed training 22 days early, his ADSC would have reflected his actual graduation date and not the “planned” date. Second, there is an officer in his squadron who was delayed approximately 30 days due to the same maintenance problems at Randolph PIT and, without request, had his ADSC reflect his earlier planned graduation date. He also does not recall SRA R” counseling him that if he were delayed due to reasons beyond his control, in his case maintenance problems,...