RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-01295
INDEX CODE: 112.03
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her date of separation (DOS) be adjusted to reflect 20 Nov 03, rather than
6 Jan 04.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
When she received orders for an assignment to Maxwell AFB she extended her
enlisted to obtain the required 24 months retainability. Her original
reporting date was 31 Dec 01 which required a DOS of 16 Jan 04. In an
effort to arrive at her new assignment as early as possible, her commander
authorized her to report up to 60 days prior to her original report not
later than date (RNLTD). She arrived on 21 Nov 01 resulting in a DOS
requirement of 21 Nov 03 based on 24 months retainability. She was
informed that her DOS should have been adjusted prior to departing Offutt
AFB.
In support of her request, applicant provided a personal statement, a copy
of her extension contract, a copy of her permanent-change-of-station (PCS)
orders, and documentation associated with her assignment processing. Her
complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 17 Jun 98 for a period of 4
years. Her DOS was 16 Jun 02. She has been progressively promoted to the
grade of senior airman, having assumed that grade effective and with a date
of rank of 17 Jun 01. Applicant received an assignment notification with a
RNLTD of 31 Dec 01. On 12 Oct 01, she executed an extension of her
enlistment for a period of 19 months in order to qualify for her PCS
assignment, extending her DOS to 16 Jan 04.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPAE recommends denial. DPPAE states that because members must
extend in full month increments, she was extended 19 months taking her DOS
to 16 Jan 04. AFI 36-2606 states that when an existing extension (not yet
entered) is to be replaced by an extension of a shorter duration, MPFs take
appropriate steps to shorten the extension. It was her responsibility to
contact the MPF if she wanted the extension shortened. It is not the
responsibility of the assignments section to direct airmen to the
reenlistment section if their RNLTD changes. In addition, member states
she voluntarily reported early to this assignment. This does not negate
the time she originally agreed to serve in the Air Force. There is no
reason to shorten her extension just because she chose to report early.
The DPPAE Evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 9 May
03 for review and comment within 30 days. 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 an error or injustice that would warrant corrective action.
We find no evidence of error in this case and after thoroughly reviewing
the evidence submitted in support of her appeal, we do not believe that she
has been the victim of an injustice. In this respect, we note that as part
of her extension counseling, she acknowledged an understanding that in the
event her retainability requirements were to change, she must request
cancellation of the extension within 30 calendar days. PCS retainability
requirements are determined by the assignment RNLTD. Since the applicant's
early reporting was voluntary in nature and did not necessitate a change in
her RNLTD, her retainibility requirement was not affected by her early
arrival. Thus, it appears that adjustment of her date of separation was
not warranted in this case. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the
contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief
sought in this application.
_________________________________________________________________
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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-
01295 in Executive Session on 17 Jun 03, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Robert C. Boyd, Panel Chair
Mr. James W. Russell III, Member
Ms. Martha Maust, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 7 Apr 03, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 1 May 03.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 May 03.
ROBERT S. BOYD
Panel Chair
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 | CY2004 | BC-2004-01513
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant contends that the technician who initiated her extension paper work at Travis AFB was new to the Reenlistments Office, and improperly figured her reenlistment extension, by telling her she needed 12 months to take her one month past her report not later than date (RNLTD) of 31 Dec 02. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03891
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-03891 INDEX NUMBER: 112.00 XXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: None XXX-XX-XXXX HEARING DESIRED: No ______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The extension of her enlistment she entered into on 13 Dec 01 be corrected to reflect inclusive dates of 5 Jul 04 to 4 Jan 05. ______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-02693
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: According to AFI 36-2606, paragraph 2.8., to be eligible for a Zone C SRB, airmen must complete at least 10 but no more than 14 years of total active federal military service (TAFMS) (including current enlistment and periods of active duty) on the date of reenlistment or beginning an extension of enlistment; reenlist or extend their enlistments (in one increment) in the Regular Air Force (RegAF) for at...
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 | CY2005 | BC-2005-00574
He received orders nine months prior to his separation date and never had enough retainability for the assignment. According to information provided in the advisory prepared by the Air Force Office of Primary Responsibility at Exhibit C, the applicant was notified of an assignment on 12 May 04 and on 29 Sep 04 voluntarily declined the assignment by signing AF Form 964, “PCS, TDY or Training Declination Statement.” The applicant was separated on 9 Jan 05 after completion of required active...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-02311
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-02311 INDEX CODE: 131.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her effective date of promotion to Staff Sergeant (SSgt) (23 Jul 04) be corrected to reflect her date of rank (DOR) (1 Nov 01) with retroactive promotion pay. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-03177
An AF Form 1411 (Extension or Cancellation of Extensions of Enlistment in the Regular Air Force/Air Force Reserve) indicates that on 17 Apr 03, the applicant extended his enlistment for eight months to qualify for a permanent change of station (PCS) assignment, changing his DOS to 21 Apr 05. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02073
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-02073 INDEX CODE: 110.03 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 13 Jan 08 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Extended Active Duty (EAD) date be changed from 25 Oct 05 to 11 Aug 05 to prevent a break in service, restore her promotion line number, and clear a debt for back pay and...
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...