RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-00288
INDEX CODE: 112.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The extension of her four-year 12 January 2000 enlistment for a period of
14 months she executed on 31 March 2003 be declared void.
_________________________________________________________________
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. After completing the paperwork, she was informed that
she would have to extend for an additional 25 months in order to have
retainability for a follow-on assignment to Ramstein AFB, Germany. She
advised the Military Personnel Flight (MPF) representative that it would
not make sense to extend for that amount of time when she could, instead,
reenlist. She was advised that she could reenlist, and the extension would
be cancelled. She reenlisted on 15 August 2003. She turned the signed
form into the MPF, and was told that the extension had not been cancelled
and the information on her DD Form 4/1 had been corrected. She was
miscounseled, and believes she has been the victim of an injustice because
her DD Form 4/1 (pertaining to her 15 August 2003 reenlistment) was altered
after she had already signed it.
In support of the application, the applicant submits a statement,
Reenlistment Eligibility Annex to DD Form 4 (AF Form 901),
Enlistment/Reenlistment Document, DD Form 4, Extension or Cancellation of
Extensions of Enlistment in the Regular Air Force/Air Force Reserve (AF
Form 1411), Leave Settlement Option (AF Form 1089), Reenlistment Worksheet,
Memorandum for Projected Reenlistee, and a Statement of Understanding for
Reenlistment. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Information extracted from the Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS)
indicates the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 12 January
2000 at the age of 25 in the grade of airman (E-2) for a period of four (4)
years. She has been progressively promoted to the rank of senior airman (E-
4) effective and with a date of rank of 12 July 2002.
On 31 March 2003, the applicant requested her enlistment of 12 January 2000
be extended for a period of 14 months to qualify for an overseas permanent
change of station assignment. Her request was approved on 25 April 2003,
thereby extending her date of separation (DOS) from 11 January 2003 to 11
March 2005. On 15 August 2003 the applicant reenlisted in the United
States Air Force for a period of 4 years and 18 months. She was entitled
to a Zone A, multiple 2 Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) based on 4 years
of continued service.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPPAE recommends the applicant’s request be denied. Applicant
received notification of assignment to Incirlik ABS, Turkey, on 24 February
2003. The applicant had to obtain retainability for assignment not later
than 25 March 2003. She later received notification of a follow-on
assignment to Ramstein AB, Germany on 8 July 2003. She then needed to
obtain the remaining retainability as directed by assignments. When the
applicant reenlisted on 15 August 2003 for 4 years and 18 months, she had
18 months of obligated service.
DPPAE states both sets of retainability were obtained for valid reasons and
should not be cancelled or changed. The reenlistment worksheet is a guide,
and not a binding Air Force agreement. Cases are reviewed for
discrepancies, and held for 90 days. If discrepancies are found, members
are given a new worksheet reflecting changes, which are only made with the
member’s acknowledgement and concurrence. DPPAE indicates that the
applicant chose to extend rather than reenlist for her first assignment,
even though she knew there was a chance she would receive a follow-on
assignment. She signed a valid extension for the first assignment and when
she reenlisted, she had 18 months of obligated service that must be added
to her initial four-year term of enlistment.
DPPAE’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant states she understands that she had to obtain retainability
for her assignment to Incirlik ABS, Turkey. Before she received
notification of her follow-on assignment to Ramstein AB, Germany, she had
been informed that her preferences were cancelled out of the system by the
Air Force Personnel Center. She did not want to reenlist and later
discover that she would be going to a base not on her preference worksheet.
She received notification of follow-on assignment to Ramstein AB, Germany,
and was instructed to extend an additional 25 months. However, she did not
agree with this recommendation because her Selective Reenlistment Bonus
(SRB) made her eligible for reenlistment. She was informed that first-term
airmen cannot extend for that length of time, but reenlistment would take
precedence over the extension because she had not entered into the
extension.
The applicant states she never concurred with the changes to her contract,
and she was never notified of any discrepancies.
The applicant’s review is at Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________
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 injustice. After a thorough review of the evidence
presented, we are persuaded that the applicant may have been given
inaccruate information by Military Personnel Flight (MPF) representatives
when she decided to execute the 14 month extension, rather than reenlist.
The applicant states, and we believe, that she was advised that her
reenlistment of 15 August 2003 would automatically cancel her previous
extension of 14 months. In our view, it is reasonable to assume that, had
the applicant been properly counseled, she would have chosen to reenlist
rather than extend her military service contract because she had a
Selective Reenlistment Bonus or to take the appropriate actions to request
cancellation of the extension when she was eligible to do so. In view of
the foregoing, we believe any doubt in this matter should be resolved in
her favor. Accordingly, we recommend that her 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 14-month extension of her
12 January 2000 enlistment for a period of four (4) years, executed on 31
March 2003 and approved on 25 April 2003, be declared void.
________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered document number BC-2004-00288
in Executive Session on 29 July 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Member
Mr. Vance C. Lineberger, Member
All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The following
documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 20 Jan 04, with attachments.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAE, dated.3 March 04.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 March 04.
Exhibit E. Applicant’s Rebuttal, undated.
RICHARD A. PETERSON
Panel Chair
AFBCMR BC-2004-00288
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 the 14-month extension of
her 12 January 2000 enlistment for a period of four (4) years, executed
on 31 March 2003 and approved on 25 April 2003, be, and hereby is,
declared void.
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
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 | CY2004 | BC-2004-02408
To accept the assignment, she extended her enlistment by 17 months. After notification, she had to reenlist for four years in order to accept the assignment. 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.
AF | DRB | CY2003 | FD2003-00343
The characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was found to be appropriate. See attached cy of Examiner’s Brief dtd 5 Aug 02. b. The AFDRB reviewed case on 27 Aug 02 (non-appearance w/o counsel) & concluded applicant's discharge should not be changed.
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...
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Due to the delay in receiving her In-place Base of Preference (IPBOP) assignment approval notification, she began her second extension of her current enlistment contract. We also believe that the MPF had ample time from the date of the assignment approval to provide the applicant the assignment notification and the applicant would have reenlisted on her previously established date of separation...
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-2002-02757
________________________________________________________________ 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 | CY2012 | BC-2012-01383
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-01383 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES IN THE MATTER OF: _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The 22-month extension of his enlistment contract entered on 31 May 11, be cancelled and his original date of separation (DOS) be restored. DPSOA states AFI 26-2606, Reenlistments in the USAF, paragraph 6.12.4 allows members to request cancellation...
He was not told he had only 30 days to cancel the extension should the assignment get cancelled. On 29 April 2002, applicant submitted an AF Form 1411 requesting the extension be cancelled. Reenlistment personnel have also confirmed that TSgt W directed them not to do anything at that time, including not signing the form, but to direct him to complete a DD Form 149.
Despite this, the applicant claims the MPF stated he had to accept the C-141 training because he had three and one-half years remaining on his UPT ADSC. Despite Block II of the AF Form 63 not being initialed, the applicant signed the AF Form 63 reflecting the correct ADSC and thus accepted the ADSC (Exhibit C with Attachments 1 through 4). In this case, however, the applicant has presented persuasive evidence that he agreed to the C-141 IQT training under the assumption that he would incur...