RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-02408
INDEX CODE:
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her 17-month extension be cancelled and her 28 July 2004 reenlistment
be corrected to total only 4 years.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
She was offered an assignment that required additional retainability.
To accept the assignment, she extended her enlistment by 17 months.
After extending her enlistment she was notified of a follow-on
assignment that would also require additional retainability. Had she
known of the follow-on assignment, she would have reenlisted earlier
instead of extending her current enlistment.
In support of her appeal, the applicant has provided copies of her
reenlistment documents, her extension paperwork, orders for both
assignments and a Report of Individual Personnel (RIP).
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 5 March 2004, she was notified of an assignment to Osan AB, Korea
for which she needed additional retainability. In order to accept
this assignment she applied for a 17-month extension of her
enlistment. The extension was approved and her new Date of Separation
(DOS) was 4 December 2005. On 15 July 2004, she was notified of a
follow-on assignment to Aviano AB, Italy that she needed additional
retainability to accept. She reenlisted on 28 July 2004, and incurred
a service obligation of 4 years and 15 months – a four-year
reenlistment and the 15 months remaining on her previous 17-month
extension.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPAE recommends denial. DPPAE states she received the
assignment notification to Korea on 5 March 2004. She had to obtain
additional retainability within 30 days (4 April 2004) to accept the
assignment. Her extension was not approved until 19 April 2004 – 15
days past the 30-day deadline with which to obtain the retainability.
The offer had not expired however, and DPPAE therefore considers the
17-month extension a valid one. She then received notification of a
follow-on assignment on 15 July 2004. After notification, she had to
reenlist for four years in order to accept the assignment. Both sets
of retainability were obtained for valid reasons and should not be
cancelled or changed. She 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 form for
the first assignment and then reenlisted for four years. The fifteen
remaining months of her extension must remain part of her obligation.
DPPAE’s complete 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
10 September 2004 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this
date, no response has been received by this office.
_________________________________________________________________
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 error or injustice. 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 applicant chose to extend rather than
reenlist for her first assignment and signed a valid extension form
for the first assignement due to assignment requirements. 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-
2004-02408 in Executive Session on 13 October 2004, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Martha J. Evans, Panel Chair
Mr. Jay H. Jordan, Member
Ms. Carolyn B. Willis, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 30 August 2004.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 September 2004.
MARTHA J. EVANS
Panel Chair
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 | 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 | 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-2004-00642
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 | 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-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 | CY2003 | BC-2003-02558
We note that, at the time the Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) was announced for the applicant’s career field, she had planned to extend her enlistment rather than reenlist. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that she was honorably discharged on 2 July 2003 rather than 31 July 2003 and reenlisted in the Regular Air Force on...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00739
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-00739 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 29 AUG 06 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed to allow him to reenter military service. I have read the rules in Air Force Regulations (AFRs) 35-16 and 39-29 pertaining to loss of...
_________________________________________________________________ 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 | 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...