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. 

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

In 2011, while stationed at Little Rock Air Force Base, 
Arkansas, he reenlisted to get retainability for a short-notice 
Permanent Change of Station (PCS) assignment to Kadena Air Base, 
Japan.  When he arrived at Kadena, he was advised that he did 
not have enough retainability.  After he received another 
assignment to Third Air Force, approximately 13 months later, he 
learned his previous reenlistment did not consummate.  

He informed the personnel technician that he reenlisted at his 
previous base prior to his PCS assignment to Kadena.  He was 
notified by the Military Personnel Flight (MPF) that his 
reenlistment was not updated in the Military Personnel Data 
System (MilPDS), nor was a copy in the Personnel Records Display 
Application (PRDA).  

He was informed he would have to reenlist again, at which time 
he requested to sell 30 days of leave and was told he was 
authorized.  He does not recall being offered this entitlement 
at Little Rock and since he never reenlisted in 2011, he 
questioned the ability to sell back 30 days of accrued leave.  
He was told by both the MPF and Defense Finance and Accounting 
Service (DFAS) that he could sell back leave because there was 
no MilPDS update or record of his reenlistment in the system.  

In Jul 12, the Kadena MPF changed the date of his reenlistment 
contract to reflect 14 Sep 11 (his original reenlistment date) 
versus 30 Jul 12 (new reenlistment date) as reflected on the AF 
901, Reenlistment Eligibility Annex to DD Form 4 and DD Form 
4/2, Enlistment/Reenlistment Document Armed Forces of the United 
States.  The MPF updated MilPDS to reflect his original 
reenlistment date (14 Sep 11) and typed “reconstructed copy” on 
the top of his contract, which according to subject matter 
experts (SMEs) in the personnel field, should not have been 
done.  

He signed a new AF Form 1089, Leave Settlement Option because he 
did not get paid for the leave he previously attempted to sell 
back.

He should not be penalized from taking advantage of a 
congressional entitlement worth $6,400 because of clerical 
errors, a counselor’s poor understanding of the rules or an 
aggressive duty schedule coupled by multiple PCS assignments 
within a short period of time.

In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal 
statement, AF Form 901; DD Forms 4/1 and 4/2; and AF Form 1089. 

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 chief master sergeant. 

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of 
the Air Force, which is at Exhibit B.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial.  DPSOA states that the applicant 
made no attempt to sell leave until the authorized amount of 
carryover year-to-year was slated to return back to 60 days 
effective 30 Sep 13.

DPSOA states that the applicant believes he was not given the 
option to sell back leave when he reenlisted on 14 Sep 11; 
however, all reenlistment and extension worksheets asks if a 
member wants to sell back any leave.  In addition, the 
applicant does not deny he did not request to sell back leave 
on 14 Sep 11 or provide any proof he was not aware he could 
sell back leave at that time.

DPSOA states that the applicant did not try to sell leave when 
his contract was reaccomplished on 30 Jul 12.

DPSOA states that the Air Force announced the “Expiration of 
Leave Carryover Extension” on 30 Oct 12, and it was not until 
after that the applicant attempted to sell leave by completing 
an AF Form 1089, dated 15 Nov 12.  

DPSOA states that the applicant provided a copy of his AF Form 
1089; however, it is not valid because leave cannot be sold 
once an airman reenlists.  

The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit B.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the 
applicant on 6 Apr 13, for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit C).  As of this date, this office has not received a 
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 injustice.  We took 
notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the 
merits of the case; however, we are not persuaded the applicant 
has been the victim of an error or injustice.  Therefore, we 
agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force 
office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the 
basis for our decision that the applicant has not been the 
victim of an error or injustice.  In view of the above and 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 BC-2013-00483 in 
Executive Session on 15 Oct 13, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:

			Panel Chair
			Member
      Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 13 Jan 13, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 1 Apr 13.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Apr 13.



		Panel Chair