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.  

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His current enlistment contract shows he enlisted for five years 
and nine weeks.  

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides copies of his 
reenlistment contract and a military personnel system document.  

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

________________________________________________________________
_

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in 
the grade of staff sergeant (E-5) as a Special Agent with the 
Air Force Office of Special Investigations.  He reenlisted in 
the Regular Air Force on 26 September 2008 for a period of five 
years and nine months which established his DOS and Expiration 
of Term of Service (ETS) as 25 June 2014.  

________________________________________________________________
_

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ARPC/DPSOA recommends denial.  DPSOA states that when the 
applicant reenlisted on 26 September 2008, he had nine months of 
obligated service based on his previous DOS from his last 
enlistment.  He reenlisted for five years and nine months; 
however, the term “weeks” was not lined out on the contract and 
replaced with the term “months” as stated in the processing 
procedures.  Per Air Force guidance, years and months is the 
only authorized terms of enlistment/reenlistment as the Air 
Force does not allow reenlistments down to the week.  The 
applicant’s DOS of 26 June 2008 has been in the personnel data 
system and on his monthly Leave and Earnings Statement (LES) for 
almost five years, but any notifications and Records of 
Individual Personnel (RIPs) would have reflected a 25 June 2014 
DOS.  

On 29 March 2012, the applicant was issued orders for an 
assignment to Offutt Air Force Base (AFB), Nebraska, with a 
30 April 2012 Report Not Later Than Date (RNLTD).  His orders 
indicated he incurred a 24 month Active Duty Service Commitment 
(ADSC); meaning he needed retainability through April 2014.  His 
DOS of 25 June 2014 is also on his orders and is the reason he 
did not need any retainability for his current assignment.  He 
would have also been made aware of his 25 June 2014 DOS when he 
processed for his assignment to Offutt AFB in April 2012.  

DPSOA indicates that if the Board’s decision is to support the 
applicant’s request, they recommend the Board direct the 
applicant’s nine weeks be changed to eight weeks or twelve weeks 
to support conversion to two months (DOS would be 25 November 
2013) or three months (DOS would be 25 December 2013) to allow 
update in the Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS) and the 
Defense Finance and Accounting System (DFAS); otherwise there 
will always be a mismatch in MilPDS and DFAS for his records.  
Additionally, recommend the Board direct he be extended to April 
2014 based on his 24-month ADSC he accepted for his current 
assignment.  

The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit C.  

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

He respectfully rebuts the DPSOA advisory opinion due to the 
fact that a reenlistment contract is exactly that, a binding 
contract.  The mere concept that “he should have been aware” 
does not negate the fact that the reenlistment contract is a 
binding contract.  It is a complete injustice of the United 
States Code (USC) to employ the concept of “should have been 
aware” to justify reasoning for denial of an official request.  
The excuse provided by DPSOA has no bearing to the USC and is 
simply not legal justification to deviate from an official 
contract’s verbiage.  He requests his reenlistment contract be 
honored and his DOS be corrected.  

The applicant’s complete rebuttal 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 not timely filed; however, it is in the 
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

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.  We 
took note that although the reenlistment form needs to be 
revised to reflect months rather than weeks, the applicant was 
aware that he had nine months remaining on his enlistment when 
he reenlisted for five years.  This fact is also evident when he 
accepted his PCS to Offutt AFB and had to have retainability for 
the assignment.  Had he only had five years and nine weeks, he 
would have had to extend.  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-2013-03119 in Executive Session on 20 March 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-2013-03119:

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 Jun 13, w/atchs.
Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPOSA, dated 28 Aug 13.
Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 Sep 13.
Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 30 Sep 13.




								                
								Panel Chair
2

3