RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-01296
INDEX CODE: 112.03
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His date of separation (DOS) be adjusted to reflect 16 Nov 03, rather than
16 Jan 04.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
When he received orders for an assignment to Maxwell AFB he extended his
enlisted to obtain the required 24 months retainability. His original
reporting date was 31 Dec 01 which required a DOS of 16 Jan 04. In an
effort to arrive at his new assignment as early as possible, his commander
authorized him to report up to 60 days prior to his original report not
later than date (RNLTD). He arrived on 16 Nov 01 resulting in an active
duty service commitment of 15 Nov 03. He was informed that his DOS should
have been adjusted prior to departing Offutt AFB.
In support of his request, applicant provided a personal statement, a copy
of his extension contract, a copy of his permanent-change-of-station (PCS)
orders, and documentation associated with his assignment processing. His
complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 17 Feb 99 for a period of 4
years. His DOS was 16 Feb 03. He has been progressively promoted to the
grade of senior airman, having assumed that grade effective and with a date
of rank of 17 Feb 02. Applicant received an assignment notification with a
RNLTD of 31 Dec 01. On 26 Sep 01, he executed an extension of his
enlistment for a period of 11 months in order to qualify for his PCS
assignment, extending his DOS to 17 Jan 04.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPAE recommends denial. DPPAE states that because members must
extend in full month increments, he was extended 11 months taking his 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 his responsibility to
contact the MPF if he 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 he
voluntarily reported early to this assignment. This does not negate the
time he originally agreed to serve in the Air Force. There is no reason to
shorten his extension just because he chose to report early. The DPPAE
Evaluation is at Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________
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 his appeal, we do not believe that he
has been the victim of an injustice. In this respect, we note that as part
of his extension counseling, he acknowledged an understanding that in the
event his retainability requirements were to change, he 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
his RNLTD, his retainibility requirement was not affected by his early
arrival. Thus, it appears that adjustment of his 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-
01296 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 3 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-2003-01295
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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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...
On 14 April 2000, the applicant, who had an established date of separation (DOS) of 25 April 2000, reenlisted in the Regular Air Force for a period of 4 years, thereby establishing a new DOS of 13 April 2004. The AFPC/DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit C. __________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant responded by stating that on his AF Form 1411, Extension of Enlistment in the Regular Air Force, it reflects that he was...
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...
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was advised by a Military Personnel Flight (MPF) representative, that if volunteered for an overseas assignment and extended his current enlistment for a period of 36 months to obtain the required retainability, he would receive a Zone C Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) upon entering into the extension. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01199
AFI 36-2626, Airman Retraining Program, Attachment 8, SRB Provisions for Retraining, requires the enlistee to acknowledge understanding that if he retrains from a non-SRB skill to an SRB skill or vice-versa, he would not receive an SRB if he reenlists to obtain the retraining retainability, and if he remains eligible to reenlist, he is entitled to the SRB multiple level in effect when final approval is received. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Skills Management Branch, AFPC/DPPAE, reviewed the application and states that applicant initialed the counseling section of the extension document indicating that he was aware and understood that he could reenlist versus extend. Furthermore, the applicant has not provided any evidence to substantiate that the MPF failed to properly do their job despite his initials on the extension document...