RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03826 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His extension of enlistment be changed to include a zone B 
Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) for 48 months or replaced 
with a constructive reenlistment. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He was miscounseled regarding his extension. He was informed he 
was outside of his window and therefore ineligible to reenlist 
at that time. In order to secure 36 months retainability for 
re-languaging at Defense Language Institute, he was forced to 
extend for 8 months. He was told he could cancel the extension 
upon arrival at Ft. Gordon, GA and inturn reenlist. 

 

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit A. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant currently serves in the Regular Air Force in the 
grade of staff sergeant (E-5). 

 

On 19 Jan 10, the applicant was counseled by Military Personnel 
Flight (MPF) via the AF IMT 1411, Extension or Cancellation of 
Extensions of Enlistment in the Regular Air Force/Air Force 
Reserve on his extension request and his available options. 

 

On 22 Jan 10, the applicant requested his current enlistment 
that he entered on 10 Dec 07 be extended for a period of eight 
months for the purpose of qualifying for retraining. 

 

On 29 Jan 10, the applicant’s request for his extension was 
approved and his Date of Separation (DOS) was extended for eight 
months from 9 Dec 13 to 9 Aug 14. 

 


The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of 
primary responsibility which is attached at Exhibit C. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial, indicating all documents were 
completed correctly and he was afforded the appropriate 
counseling. At the time the applicant extended, he needed eight 
months retainability in order to meet the requirement to 
retrain. The applicant was not eligible to reenlist at the time 
of his extension because he had too much obligated service. He 
had 46 months of obligated service and the most a service member 
is allowed to have in order to qualify to reenlist is 36 months. 
The applicant states he was forced to extend for eight months; 
however, he t initialed on the AF IMT 1411, Section IX 
“Additional Extension Counseling,” that he understood he can 
elect to extend between 36 months and 48 months and be entitled 
to an SRB even though less retainability is required. The SRB 
payment would be based on the SRB multiple level in effect on 
the date the applicant signed Section II of the form. The 
applicant elected to extend for eight months instead of 
exercising the option of extending between 36 and 48 months. 

 

If the applicant had extended for 48 months with the zone B 
multiple 6.0 SRB, he would not have been entitled to any payment 
until he entered into the extension on 10 Dec 13. He was 
counseled that he could extend with entitlement to payment of a 
zone B multiple 6.0 SRB for up to 48 months. 

 

The MPF personnel indicate they did not know if the applicant 
was hoping to receive a service-directed retainability for more 
training or retainability for change of assignment which would 
allow him to reenlist and receive the SRB payment immediately. 
Nevertheless, the applicant was counseled on his options back in 
Jan 2010. He reported to his new assignment on 25 Jul 12, but 
did not require retainability based on his DOS. 

 

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The applicant reiterates his argument that he was miscounseled 
when told he was outside his window for reenlistment and 
therefore, could not reenlist to obtain the necessary 
retainability for retraining. He stated that the counselor 
reviewed the form with him and explained that, at that time, he 
had too much obligated service time remaining in order to extend 
for more than the controlled duty assignment (CDA) requirement. 
He was told that the extension in section IX of the AF IMT 1411 


was not an option for him, at that time, but after arriving his 
follow-on assignment, he could cancel the 8 month extension and 
apply for the full 48 month extension, which would allow him to 
receive an SRB upon entering the said extension. 

 

The applicant argues that according to AFI 36-2606, Table 3.3 
(it is actually, AFI 36-2626, Table 3.3.), a second term or 
career airman must have, or be able to obtain, 36 months (for 
the 1N3XX – Crypto Linguist, career field) or 14 months past 
class gradation date/OJT effective date (whichever is greater) 
without entering High Year Tenure restrictions. His original 
DOS of 9 Dec 13 only left 16 months retainability after 
reporting to his new duty station. After extending for eight 
months, his new DOS is 9 Aug 14, not 12 Sep 14 as stated in the 
Air Force Advisory, which still does not meet the full 
requirement of 36 months. 

 

A complete copy of the applicant’s response 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. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice. We took 
notice of the applicant's complete submission, including his 
response to the Air Force evaluation, 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 its 
rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not 
been the victim of an error or injustice. While the applicant’s 
arguments are duly noted, other than his own assertions, he has 
provided no evidence whatsoever that would lead us to believe 
that his decision to request an eight month extension to his 
enlistment was the result of an error on the part of the Air 
Force. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, 
we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this 
application. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 

 

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the 
application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2012-03826 in Executive Session on 12 Mar 13, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 14 Aug 12, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 5 Oct 12. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Oct 12. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 23 Nov 12. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair