RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:				DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-03116
      COUNSEL: NONE
                 				HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

His 19-month extension executed on 19 December 2011 be corrected 
to show an extension period of 6 months rather than 19 months 
establishing his Date of Separation (DOS) as 1 January 2013 to 
cover his retainability needed for his current assignment.  

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His 19-month extension is not valid because it was filed after 
the High Year of Tenure (HYT) was changed for the grade of 
senior airman (SrA) from 10 years to 8 years; therefore, the 
extension should have been voided based on this change and not 
being able to exceed his HYT.  

He requested to cancel his 19-month extension within the 30-day 
period after his Consecutive Overseas Assignment from Korea to 
Germany was cancelled.  He was informed by the Military 
Personnel Flight (MPF) personnel that his contract was voided 
and would be removed from his record.  He was later informed 
that his extension had not been cancelled because he would not 
have had enough retainability to complete his Permanent Change 
of Station (PCS) back stateside and would have to remain in 
Korea until his Expiration Term of Service (ETS) if the 
extension was cancelled.  He was advised to keep the entire 
extension until he received an assignment and was told he would 
be able to cancel his extension by immediately reenlisting for 
his desired four years in order to retain his assignment.  He 
received his new assignment to Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, 
Ohio, on 14 November 2012, so he began inquiring into 
reenlisting.  At this time, he was informed that he was 
ineligible to cancel his extension due to exceeding the 30-day 
assignment cancellation window.  He is confident that the 
personnel he interacted with had no intention to misinform him; 
however, he took their reasoning as fact and as such, he is 
currently in this predicament.  

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides copies of his 
extension contract, denial of extension cancellation, assignment 
cancellation notification, and his extension cancellation 
appeal.  

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

________________________________________________________________
_

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant extended his 1 July 2013 DOS for 19 months on 
19 December 2011, establishing his DOS as 1 February 2015, to 
obtain retainability for his PCS to Korea and a follow-on 
assignment to Germany.  On 2 March 2012, he was notified of the 
PCS to Germany being cancelled due to the new HYT rules.  

The remaining relevant facts, extracted from his official 
military service record, are contained in the evaluation by the 
Air Force office of primary responsibility at Exhibit C.  

________________________________________________________________
_

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ARPC/DPSOA recommends denial.  DPSOA states the applicant 
initialed the statement on his extension form indicating “I 
understand if the original reason for which I extended is 
cancelled; I may request cancellation of this extension provided 
I have not entered it.  I must request cancellation within 30 
CALENDAR DAYS of the date I am notified the original reason for 
which I extended no longer exists.  Failure to cancel the 
extension within the 30 CALENDAR DAY time limit will be 
considered a willingness on my part to serve out the extension.” 
There is no evidence that the applicant requested cancellation 
within the 30-day cancellation window.  Had he cancelled his 19-
month extension when his original PCS was cancelled, he would 
have had to immediately complete another extension for six 
months to give him 12 months of retainability to receive a 
stateside assignment when he returned from overseas.  

The applicant contends his extension contract should be 
considered erroneous since it has a “Filed Apr 02 2012” stamped 
on it, and the HYT change was effective 19 December 2011.  
However, they are not sure what the applicant is trying to point 
out as far as the HYT changes, since his eight-year HYT date was 
2 July 2015 and the 19-month extension only had him serving to 
his current DOS of 1 February 2015; well short of his HYT date.  
Although he contends he requested to cancel his 19-month 
extension contract within the 30-day cancellation window, he has 
not provided any evidence or statements from personnel he talked 
to in support of his contentions.  

The complete DPSOA 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 15 October 2013, for review and comment within 30 
days (Exhibit D).  As of this date, this office has received no 
response.

________________________________________________________________
_

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 an 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 its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the 
applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  
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 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-2013-03116 in Executive Session on 1 April 2014, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

			                    , Panel Chair
			                    , Member
			                    , Member



The following documentary evidence was considered in connection 
with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-03116:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 31 Mar 12, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Enlistment Documents.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, ARPC/DPT, dated 5 Jun 12, w/atchs.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Jun 12.




								                      
								Panel Chair

4

3