RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  00-00906
            INDEX CODE:  128.00, 128.14

            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  No


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS:

Entitlement to a full Selective Reenlistment  Bonus  (SRB)  with  no
deduction for obligated service.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was serving a one-year remote tour at Osan AB, Republic of Korea,
on the last year of his first enlistment.  He was having a hard time
deciding whether he should reenlist for a second term.  However,  he
did not want to separate from the Air Force from a remote  location.
Therefore, he decided to reenlist for a second  term.   He  did  not
have enough time in service left to qualify for permanent change  of
station (PCS) orders to a stateside base which is why he decided  to
complete an extension of his enlistment for one year.  At  the  time
of his extension counseling, the  military  personnel  flight  (MPF)
representative specifically told him that as long as  he  reenlisted
before the extension began, the extension would be  void.   AF  Form
1441 (Extension or Cancellation of Extensions of Enlistment  in  the
Regular Air Force/Air Force Reserve)  has  an  additional  extension
counseling section which includes  two  statements  which  were  not
initialed  by  him  indicating  that  he  was   not   briefed   this
information.  After he received his orders, he decided  to  reenlist
for a second term.  In doing so, he was under the impression that he
would reenlist for six years and receive his SRB for the entire  six
years.   Because  his  reenlistment  began  on  the  exact  day  the
extension was supposed to begin, he never entered the extension.  At
the time of his reenlistment, the MPF representative said  he  would
only receive payment for five  of  the  six  years  because  he  had
previously completed extension paperwork.  He was also  told,  “it’s
too late to initiate a correction process because you are too  close
to PCSing.”  Furthermore, if he had waited any longer  to  reenlist,
he would  have  entered  the  extension.   In  conclusion,  the  MPF
representative should have been clear and correct in the information
he was given.  He was misinformed and incompletely  briefed  of  his
rights.  Therefore, he should be granted this correction of  record.
In addition, he should be paid for a six-year enlistment instead  of
a five-year enlistment.

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force (RegAF) on 4 Jan  95
for a period of four years.

On 29 Jun 98, the applicant extended his 4 Jan 95 enlistment  for  a
period  of  12  months  for  the  purpose  of  qualifying  for   PCS
assignment.

On 3 Jan 99, he  was  honorably  discharged  and  on  4 Jan  99,  he
reenlisted in the Air Force for a period of six years.

He is currently serving in the  RegAF  in  the  grade  of  sergeant,
effective, and with a date of rank (DOR) of 4 May 97.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief,  Skills  Management  Branch,  AFPC/DPPAE,  reviewed  this
application and indicated that review of the applicant’s  case  file
revealed that his extension of enlistment was not initialed  in  the
appropriate section to acknowledge understanding of the terms of the
contract.  In accordance  with  AFI  36-2606,  Reenlistment  in  the
United States Air Force, Chapter 4,  paragraph  4.13,  the  MPF  was
required to counsel and ensure completion of the document.   In  the
absence of his initials, it is reasonable to conclude  that  he  was
not  counseled  on  the  impact  of  the  extension  on  future  SRB
entitlements.  Nonetheless, the error by the MPF may not  by  itself
justify granting the applicant the full  SRB  entitlement.   If  the
applicant had been properly counseled on the impact of the extension
on future SRB  entitlements,  he  had  three  options:   (1)  either
reenlist; (2) extend 12 months  for  the  PCS  assignment;  or,  (3)
refuse retainability and separate from active  duty.   DPPAE  states
that the end result would have been  the  same  with  the  applicant
extending his enlistment for 12 months.  DPPAE recommends denial  of
applicant’s request.

A  complete  copy  of  the  Air  Force  evaluation  is  attached  at
Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________




APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was  forwarded  to  applicant  on
9 Jun 00 for review and response.  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.    Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of probable error or injustice.  Having  reviewed  the
applicant’s submission and the evidence of record, we find there  is
sufficient  basis  to  warrant  a  finding  of  possible  inadequate
counseling in this case.  In this respect, we note, and as noted  by
the Chief, Skills Management Branch, that  in  the  absence  of  the
applicant’s  initials  on  his  extension  of  enlistment   contract
indicating that he acknowledged understanding of the  terms  of  the
contract, it is reasonable to conclude that he was not counseled  on
the impact of the extension on future SRB entitlements.  We  believe
that  the  error  in  the  processing  of  the  extension  justifies
corrective action.  Therefore, in order to remove any possibility of
an injustice, we recommend that the applicant’s records be corrected
as indicated below.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that the extension of
his 4 Jan 95 enlistment executed on 28 Jun 98, for a period of 12
months, be declared void.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 12 October 2000, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:

                  Mr. Patrick R. Wheeler, Panel Chair
                  Ms. Margaret A. Zook, Member
              Mr. Jackson A. Hauslein, Member



All members voted to  correct  the  records,  as  recommended.   The
following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 21 Mar 00, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Microfiche.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 22 May 00.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 9 Jun 00.




                                   PATRICK R. WHEELER
                                   Panel Chair


AFBCMR 00-00906




MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

      Having received and considered the recommendation of  the  Air
Force Board  for  Correction  of  Military  Records  and  under  the
authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States  Code  (70A  Stat
116), it is directed that:

      The pertinent military records of the Department  of  the  Air
Force relating to , be corrected to show that the extension  of  his
4 January 1995 enlistment executed on 28 June 1998, for a period  of
12 months, be, and hereby is, declared void.









                                                           JOE    G.
LINEBERGER
                                                         Director
                                                          Air  Force
Review Boards Agency