RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01295
		INDEX CODE:  112.03
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her date of separation (DOS) be adjusted to reflect 20 Nov 03, rather than 6 Jan 04.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

When she received orders for an assignment to Maxwell AFB she extended her enlisted to obtain the required 24 months retainability.  Her original reporting date was 31 Dec 01 which required a DOS of 16 Jan 04.  In an effort to arrive at her new assignment as early as possible, her commander authorized her to report up to 60 days prior to her original report not later than date (RNLTD).  She arrived on 21 Nov 01 resulting in a DOS requirement of 21 Nov 03 based on 24 months retainability.  She was informed that her DOS should have been adjusted prior to departing Offutt AFB.

In support of her request, applicant provided a personal statement, a copy of her extension contract, a copy of her permanent-change-of-station (PCS) orders, and documentation associated with her assignment processing. Her complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.  

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 17 Jun 98 for a period of 4 years.  Her DOS was 16 Jun 02.  She has been progressively promoted to the grade of senior airman, having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 17 Jun 01.  Applicant received an assignment notification with a RNLTD of 31 Dec 01.  On 12 Oct 01, she executed an extension of her enlistment for a period of 19 months in order to qualify for her PCS assignment, extending her DOS to 16 Jan 04.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPAE recommends denial.  DPPAE states that because members must extend in full month increments, she was extended 19 months taking her DOS to 16 Jan 04.  AFI 36-2606 states that when an existing extension (not yet entered) is to be replaced by an extension of a shorter duration, MPFs take appropriate steps to shorten the extension.  It was her responsibility to contact the MPF if she wanted the extension shortened.  It is not the responsibility of the assignments section to direct airmen to the reenlistment section if their RNLTD changes.  In addition, member states she voluntarily reported early to this assignment.  This does not negate the time she originally agreed to serve in the Air Force.  There is no reason to shorten her extension just because she chose to report early.  The DPPAE 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 9 May 03 for review and comment within 30 days.  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 injustice that would warrant corrective action.  We find no evidence of error in this case and after thoroughly reviewing the evidence submitted in support of her appeal, we do not believe that she has been the victim of an injustice.  In this respect, we note that as part of her extension counseling, she acknowledged an understanding that in the event her retainability requirements were to change, she must request cancellation of the extension within 30 calendar days.  PCS retainability requirements are determined by the assignment RNLTD.  Since the applicant's early reporting was voluntary in nature and did not necessitate a change in her RNLTD, her retainibility requirement was not affected by her early arrival.  Thus, it appears that adjustment of her date of separation was not warranted in this case.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling 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-2003-01295 in Executive Session on 17 Jun 03, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 7 Apr 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 1 May 03.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 May 03.