RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-00163
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His original date of separation (DOS) of 4 May 2003 be reinstated.
_________________________________________________________________
THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
While stationed in Andersen AB, Guam, he had a follow-on assignment to
Kadena AB, Japan and was directed to sign a two-month extension in order to
obtain the required retainability for the assignment. However, he extended
his 15-month tour at Andersen AB, Guam to a 27-month unaccompanied tour.
Therefore, the original reason for the extension was cancelled. Although
he understands the 30-day clause, he was not provided the opportunity to
extend his tour at Andersen AB until well after 30 days.
In support of the appeal, the applicant submits a copy of his 12 May 2000
extension contract.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in the grade of
senior airman.
He enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 5 May 1999 for a period of four
years, establishing a DOS of 4 May 2003.
On 12 May 2000, he extended his 5 May 1999 enlistment for a period of 2
months for the purpose of obtaining retainability for a Permanent Change of
Station (PCS) assignment, establishing a DOS of 4 July 2003.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPAE recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that
when the applicant completed the extension agreement he initialed the block
that states, “I understand if the original reason for which I extended is
cancelled, I may request cancellation of this extension provided I have not
entered it. If I am eligible and want to cancel this extension, I must
request cancellation within THIRTY CALENDAR DAYS of the date I am notified
the original reason for which I extended no longer exists. Failure to
cancel the extension within the 30-calendar day limit will be considered a
willingness on my part to serve out the extension.” The applicant’s 30
days to cancel the extension began the day his assignment to Kadena AB was
canceled; therefore, he should have had enough time to cancel the extension
within the time limit.
The AFPC/DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant
on 31 January 2003 for review and response within 30 days. However, as of
this date, this office has received no response.
_________________________________________________________________
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 error or injustice. After a thorough review of the evidence
of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that relief
should be granted. Applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we do
not find these assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to
override the rationale provided by the Air Force. The office of primary
responsibility has adequately addressed applicant’s contentions and we
agree with their opinion and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for
our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he
has suffered either an error or an injustice. Hence, we find no compelling
basis to recommend granting the relief sought.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate
the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was
denied without a personal appearance; and that 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 Docket Number BC-2003-00163
in Executive Session on 8 May 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Vice Chair
Mr. James W. Russell, III, Member
Ms. Cheryl Jacobson, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 13 Jan 03, w/atch.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 27 Jan 03.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 31 Jan 03.
THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
Vice Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00097
She was briefed that she was entitled to an SRB for the 16 months of her second extension. The extension contract provided clearly shows she was counseled she was entitled to the SRB. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the Air Force office of primary responsibility that the error on her one-month extension contract indicating her entitlement to an SRB, is administrative in nature and does not, in itself, authorize...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00642
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-00642 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The 23-month extension of his enlistment contract and his original date of separation be restored. In this respect, the majority of the Board notes that the applicant executed an extension contract on 14 March 2002 for a period of 23...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02757
________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPAE indicates that an extension to an enlistment can be cancelled only if the reason for the extension no longer exists. 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 and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00420
As a result, the OPR and MSM 2OLC were not in her OSR when the CY01B board convened. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant contends by regulation the OPR was required to have been a matter of record at the time of the CY01B board. Therefore, the award cannot be included in the applicant’s OSR for CY01B board’s consideration because it did not exist when...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03817
However, if the member requests cancellation of his follow- on assignment, he will then be authorized reimbursement for the DITTY move. If he elects this option, the MPF will request cancellation of his follow-on assignment through this office and his orders will be amended accordingly. Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02273
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-02273 INDEX CODE: 112.03 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His ten-month extension of his enlistment contract be cancelled. This extension provided him with 36 months retainability, which would have been required for an accompanied tour to the United Kingdom. Exhibit C. Letter,...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01296
His original reporting date was 31 Dec 01 which required a DOS of 16 Jan 04. PCS retainability requirements are determined by the assignment RNLTD. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01295
Her original reporting date was 31 Dec 01 which required a DOS of 16 Jan 04. PCS retainability requirements are determined by the assignment RNLTD. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01885
The extension was not cancelled per his request. They indicated that on AF Form 1411, section VIII, the applicant initialed the block that states “I understand if the original reason for which I extended is cancelled, I may request cancellation of this extension provided I have not entered it. The evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 11 June 2003, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00288
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She received an assignment notification to Incirlik ABS, Turkey, and was advised that she would have to extend for 14 months to obtain retainability for this assignment. On 15 August 2003 the applicant reenlisted in the United States Air Force for a period of 4 years and 18 months. DPPAE’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit...