RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-01513
INDEX NUMBER: 100.03
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her 12-month extension of enlistment be changed to an 11-month
extension and her date of separation (DOS) be corrected to reflect
26 Dec 04.
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
She only had to extend her enlistment for 11 months versus 12
months for her Permanent Change of Station (PCS) assignment to
Nellis AFB. This will prevent her from extending 12 months for a
personal convenience extension. She is a first term airman and the
maximum number of months she can extend is 23 months. If she had
been able to extend for only 11 months for her PCS assignment, she
would qualify for a 12-month personal convenience extension.
In support of her application, she provided a personal letter to
AFPC/DPPAER, a copy of her enlistment/reenlistment contract, and a
copy of a PCS assignment order.
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
___________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 27 Jan 00, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force in
the grade of airman for a period of four years. She was
progressively promoted to the rank of staff sergeant.
On 22 May 02, applicant executed an AF Form 1411 (Extension or
Cancellation of Extensions of Enlistment in the Regular Air
Force/Air Force Reserve), extending her enlistment for 12 months to
qualify for a PCS assignment. The member’s new date of separation
was established as 26 Jan 05.
___________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPAE recommends the applicant’s request be disapproved.
DPPAE states, in part, that the applicant signed a valid extension
form and should have questioned any discrepancies at the time she
signed the form, not almost two years later.
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. The Outbound Assignments Section
at Nellis AFB told her that her extension should have only brought
her to Dec 04, two years from her RNLTD. She recently became aware
of these discrepancies while working in the Reenlistments Office,
where she got to know the program in depth. (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 error or injustice warranting favorable action on
the applicant’s request. In this regard, the governing instruction
states that Military Personnel Flights (MPFs) will limit extensions
of enlistments to the minimum number of months needed to achieve
their purpose. The Air Force Assignments Section has informally
advised that applicant would have needed 24 months of retainability
from her report not later than date (RNLTD) of 31 December 2002, to
accept her permanent change of station (PCS) assignment. Based on
this, the applicant would have only had to extend her enlistment
for 11 months. Therefore, we recommend that the 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 extension of
her 27 January 2000 enlistment, executed on 22 May 2002, was for a
period of 11 months rather than 12 months.
___________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number
BC-2004-01513 in Executive Session on 8 July 2004, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Gregory H. Petkoff, Panel Chair
Ms. Martha A. Maust, Member
Mr. Robert H. Altman, Member
All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The
following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 6 May 04, w/atchs
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 3 Jun 04
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Jun 04
Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 14 Jun 04
GREGORY H. PETKOFF
Panel Chair
AFBCMR BC-2004-01513
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
extension of her 27 January 2000 enlistment, executed on 22 May
2002, was for a period of eleven months rather than twelve months.
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
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-2003-01296
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 | CY2012 | BC-2012-04772
On 19 Sep 11, the applicant acknowledged the new ADSC of 9 Feb 15 and agreed to the new training dates by signing the AF Form 63, ADSC Acknowledgement Statement. Instead, she accepted the training and agreed to the ADSC that began upon completion of the ADSC incurring event. On 19 Sep 11, the applicant received and acknowledged the ADSC and agreed to the new training dates.
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 | 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.
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-2004-00288
_________________________________________________________________ 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03022
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-03022 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: She be reimbursed $1,293.13 to offset Temporary Lodging Expenses (TLE) incurred with her Permanent Change of Station (PCS) assignment to Ramstein Air Base (AB), Germany. A request was submitted to the Secretary of the Air Force Financial...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-04247
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSFOC states that they e-mailed the applicant on 21 January 2004 and requested she provide either a copy of her WBFMP case file or a letter of support from her commander detailing how she was unfairly treated while on the WBFMP. Since her record does not contain a letter from her commander recommending promotion to SRA, they must conclude that her promotion remained in withhold status. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05852
Recommend the Board change the applicants DAS to SJAFB to reflect 28 May 13 since this is the day the Join Spouse assignment was approved by the Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC) and also this is the day the applicant was officially assigned to SJAFB. AFMAN 65-116V1, Defense Joint Military Pay System Active Component (DJMS-AC) FSO Procedures, paragraph 41.2.3.1.2.2. states If the member takes leave in the local area of the new PDS (Permanent Duty Station) without contacting the...