RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-05160
XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
________________________________________________________________
THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His 9-month extension of his 10 Jul 07 enlistment be voided.
________________________________________________________________
THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He never agreed to nor signed any extension paperwork. Despite
the lack of documentation in the Military Personnel Data System
(MILPDS) of the agreement, he was given an extension to his
enlistment without his knowledge.
His enlistment was erroneously extended and he request the
extension be dismissed and his original Date of Separation (DOS)
be reinstated. His original DOS was 9 Jul 13 and his new DOS is
9 Apr 14.
The applicantÂ’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 10 Jul 07, the applicant enlisted in the regular Air Force
for a period of 6 years establishing his DOS as 9 Jul 13. In
Aug 10, he volunteered and received a Consecutive Overseas Tour
(COT) assignment from Japan to Hawaii with a 30 Apr 11 reporting
date. The tour length for his assignment was 36 months from the
reporting month; so he needed a nine month extension to receive
his orders and proceed to the assignment. His orders, dated
2 Mar 11, in item 12, reflects a DOS of 9 Apr 14; which was
established by the nine month extension.
________________________________________________________________
THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial, stating, in part, that the
applicant contends he never signed extension documents and was
given an extension without his knowledge. There are no
extension documents in applicant's records, although the nine
month extension is updated in the personnel and finance data
systems, the applicant would not have been allowed to receive
orders or proceed on assignment without obtaining the required
retainability. DPSOA believes the extension documents were
completed and misplaced before they could be added to
applicant's personnel records. DPSOA directs that missing
documents be reaccomplished when the extension period of the
missing documents match the retainability requirement.
Otherwise, members would not be allowed to receive benefits
without first obtaining the required retainability. The
applicant's DOS has been 9 Apr 14 in the personnel and finance
systems since Mar 11. Additionally, the applicant would have
been showing up on a weekly mismatch roster with a date arrive
station of 11 Apr 11, if his DOS did not match his Date Eligible
to Return from Overseas (DEROS) date of 11 Apr 14.
The complete AFPC/DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit C.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the
applicant on 11 Jan 13 for review and comment within 30 days.
As of this date, no response has been received by this office
(Exhibit D).
________________________________________________________________
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. In
addition, while we are not certain as to the circumstances
surrounding the applicantÂ’s paperwork for the extension, based
upon the presumption of regularity in the conduct of
governmental affairs and without evidence to the contrary, we
must assume that the applicant's extension was proper and in
compliance with appropriate directives. 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-2012-05160 in Executive Session on 15 Aug 13, under
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 31 Oct 12.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFP/DPSOA, dated 19 Dec 12.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Jan 13.
Acting Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2010-03193
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS His current reenlistment date of 29 Jul 08 be changed to a later date so that he may be paid a selective reenlistment bonus (SRB). The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2010-03193 in Executive Session on 13 Apr 11, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2008-01248
To meet retainability requirements and to complete the training, the applicant reenlisted on 27 Apr 07 in his previous AFSC of 4A151. The applicant contends his reenlistment was rushed and forced through the system with complete disregard to regulations days before he was eligible for an SRB. However, we did not find an error or injustice in establishing the requirement that he obtain the appropriate retainability.
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-03821
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-03821 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reenlistment contract be nullified and he be granted an extension, contingent on reenlisting in the future, if necessary. He admits to being the biggest culprit in this error for not thoroughly reviewing the contract before signing it; however,...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03879
________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The Military Personnel Flight (MPF) reenlistment office altered his DD Form 4/1 to reflect 8 Oct 2007 instead of the date he reenlisted (1 Oct 2007). The problem was the applicant's DOS/ETS was 7 Dec 2011 in DFAS system and 7 Jan 2012 in MILPDS (which coincides with the 8 Oct 2007 reenlistment for four years and three months); the 8 Oct 2007 reenlistment date was verified from his contract located in...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00483
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-00483 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reenlistment contract and AF Form 1089, Leave Settlement Option be amended to allow him the opportunity to sell back 30 days of accrued leave. In Jul 12, the Kadena MPF changed the date of his reenlistment contract to reflect 14 Sep 11 (his...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01830
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-01830 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His ten-month enlistment extension be corrected to 48 months so he can receive his full Zone C Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) with 7.0 multiplier. DPSOA states the statement the applicant initialed on the back of the AF IMT 1411, Extension...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05612
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. However, that extension or reenlistment in Aug 2012 still would not have made the applicant eligible for the SRB because member's have to be a 3-skill level in the SRB career field at the time...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03119
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-03119 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Term of Enlistment (TOE) for his 26 September 2008 reenlistment be considered as five years and nine weeks rather than five years and nine months. Per Air Force guidance, years and months is the only authorized terms of enlistment/reenlistment...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05701
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-05701 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her 8 Aug 12 enlistment contract authorizing her Zone C Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) be enforced or in the alternative be cancelled. On 21 Nov 12, the applicant filed a complaint with the IG alleging her 8 Aug 12 reenlistment contract was altered removing the SRB information without her knowledge and...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-02205
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02205 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Reentry Code (RE) of 2X (1st term, 2nd term or career airman considered but not selected for reenlistment) be changed to 3V (Separated w/Vol Sep Incentive) so he can enlist in the Utah Air National Guard. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to...