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.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His initial assignment notification stated that his overseas tour to
Lakenheath UK was for a period of 36 months. He extended for a period of
10 months to meet the retainability requirements. When he received his
orders, they reflected that his tour was for a period of 24 months. He
asked Military Personnel Flight personnel to cancel his extension and was
told that it would be taken care of.
In support of his request, applicant provided a personal statement, a copy
of his extension contract, and a copy of his permanent change-of-station
orders. His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 25 Jul 00 for a period of
four years and has been progressively promoted to the grade of senior
airman, having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 25
Jul 03. His initial date of separation was established as 25 Jul 04. On
14 Jan 02, the applicant executed a contract extending his date of
separation for a period of ten months, giving him a new date of separation
of 24 May 05.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPAE recommends denial. DPPAE states that his PCS orders clearly
state that he was being sent on assignment for only 24 months. He then
chose to obtain retainability for this assignment. He should have
questioned any discrepancies at the time he signed the form, not over a
year later. 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 8 Aug
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. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of error or injustice. Having reviewed the applicant’s
submission and the evidence of record, we find there is sufficient basis to
believe that the applicant may have been miscounseled in this case. In
this respect, we note that the applicant executed an extension contract on
14 Jan 02 for a period of ten months for the purpose of qualifying for an
overseas assignment. This extension provided him with 36 months
retainability, which would have been required for an accompanied tour to
the United Kingdom. However, since the applicant is single, according to
the applicable Air Force Instruction, an unaccompanied tour length to the
United Kingdom is for 24 months, which is appropriately indicated on his
PCS orders. Although he provides no corroborative evidence, we believe
that it is reasonable to assume that he was initially miscounseled
regarding his PCS retainability requirements and the need to extend his
enlistment. 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 his extension of his 25 July 20002
enlistment for a period of 10 months, executed on 14 January 2002, be
declared void.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-
02273 in Executive Session on 17 Sep 03, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Albert F. Lowas, Jr., Panel Chair
Mr. Michael J. Maglio, Member
Ms. Dorothy P. Loeb, Member
All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The following
documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 27 Jun 03, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 18 Jul 03.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Aug 03.
ALBERT F. LOWAS, JR.
Panel Chair
AFBCMR BC-2003-02273
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 APPLICANT, be corrected to show that his extension of his 25
July 2000 enlistment, executed on 14 January 2002, for a period of 10
months, be, and hereby is, declared void.
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
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 | CY2003 | BC-2003-022711
His new DOS is 1 September 2005. 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 been the victim of an error or injustice. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02331
His reenlistment contract shows he was eligible to receive a Zone A, Multiple 4 SRB based on 4 years of service. However, based on the evidence of record, the Board majority is not persuaded that the applicant has been a victim of an error or injustice. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: A majority of the panel finds insufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommends the application be denied.
_________________________________________________________________ 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 | 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 | CY2006 | BC-2006-01001
The IPCOT was never filed; therefore, the reason for his extension does not exist and should be canceled. His request was approved on 24 May 2005 and his date of separation was extended from 19 August 2006 to 19 January 2007. This is evidence enough the IPCOT was not approved and at that time (within 30 days) the applicant should have requested the 5-month extension be canceled.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00822 INDEX CODE: 112.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be released from his three-month extension of service, and his original date of separation of 8 Sep 02 be reinstated. Accordingly, we recommend that the applicant’s records be corrected to reflect that he extended his enlistment for...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00163
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...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00948 INDEX CODE 128.05 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His original reenlistment contract, authorizing a Zone B, Multiple 2.0 Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) be reinstated. Two of the contracts, he had signed on the dotted line, made him morally and legally responsible to uphold his part...
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...