RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-00288
		INDEX CODE:  112.00
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The extension of her four-year 12 January 2000 enlistment for a period of 14 months she executed on 31 March 2003 be declared void.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She received an assignment notification to Incirlik ABS, Turkey, and was advised that she would have to extend for 14 months to obtain retainability for this assignment.  After completing the paperwork, she was informed that she would have to extend for an additional 25 months in order to have retainability for a follow-on assignment to Ramstein AFB, Germany.  She advised the Military Personnel Flight (MPF) representative that it would not make sense to extend for that amount of time when she could, instead, reenlist.  She was advised that she could reenlist, and the extension would be cancelled.  She reenlisted on 15 August 2003.  She turned the signed form into the MPF, and was told that the extension had not been cancelled and the information on her DD Form 4/1 had been corrected.  She was miscounseled, and believes she has been the victim of an injustice because her DD Form 4/1 (pertaining to her 15 August 2003 reenlistment) was altered after she had already signed it.

In support of the application, the applicant submits a statement, Reenlistment Eligibility Annex to DD Form 4 (AF Form 901), Enlistment/Reenlistment Document, DD Form 4, Extension or Cancellation of Extensions of Enlistment in the Regular Air Force/Air Force Reserve (AF Form 1411), Leave Settlement Option (AF Form 1089), Reenlistment Worksheet, Memorandum for Projected Reenlistee, and a Statement of Understanding for Reenlistment.  The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS) indicates the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 12 January 2000 at the age of 25 in the grade of airman (E-2) for a period of four (4) years.  She has been progressively promoted to the rank of senior airman (E-4) effective and with a date of rank of 12 July 2002.  

On 31 March 2003, the applicant requested her enlistment of 12 January 2000 be extended for a period of 14 months to qualify for an overseas permanent change of station assignment.  Her request was approved on 25 April 2003, thereby extending her date of separation (DOS) from 11 January 2003 to 11 March 2005.  On 15 August 2003 the applicant reenlisted in the United States Air Force for a period of 4 years and 18 months.  She was entitled to a Zone A, multiple 2 Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) based on 4 years of continued service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPAE recommends the applicant’s request be denied.  Applicant received notification of assignment to Incirlik ABS, Turkey, on 24 February 2003.  The applicant had to obtain retainability for assignment not later than 25 March 2003.  She later received notification of a follow-on assignment to Ramstein AB, Germany on 8 July 2003.  She then needed to obtain the remaining retainability as directed by assignments.  When the applicant reenlisted on 15 August 2003 for 4 years and 18 months, she had 18 months of obligated service.

DPPAE states both sets of retainability were obtained for valid reasons and should not be cancelled or changed.  The reenlistment worksheet is a guide, and not a binding Air Force agreement.  Cases are reviewed for discrepancies, and held for 90 days.  If discrepancies are found, members are given a new worksheet reflecting changes, which are only made with the member’s acknowledgement and concurrence.  DPPAE indicates that the applicant chose to extend rather than reenlist for her first assignment, even though she knew there was a chance she would receive a follow-on assignment.  She signed a valid extension for the first assignment and when she reenlisted, she had 18 months of obligated service that must be added to her initial four-year term of enlistment.

DPPAE’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant states she understands that she had to obtain retainability for her assignment to Incirlik ABS, Turkey.  Before she received notification of her follow-on assignment to Ramstein AB, Germany, she had been informed that her preferences were cancelled out of the system by the Air Force Personnel Center.  She did not want to reenlist and later discover that she would be going to a base not on her preference worksheet.  She received notification of follow-on assignment to Ramstein AB, Germany, and was instructed to extend an additional 25 months.  However, she did not agree with this recommendation because her Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) made her eligible for reenlistment.  She was informed that first-term airmen cannot extend for that length of time, but reenlistment would take precedence over the extension because she had not entered into the extension.

The applicant states she never concurred with the changes to her contract, and she was never notified of any discrepancies. 

The applicant’s review 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 timely filed.

3.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable injustice.  After a thorough review of the evidence presented, we are persuaded that the applicant may have been given inaccruate information by Military Personnel Flight (MPF) representatives when she decided to execute the 14 month extension, rather than reenlist.  The applicant states, and we believe, that she was advised that her reenlistment of 15 August 2003 would automatically cancel her previous extension of 14 months.  In our view, it is reasonable to assume that, had the applicant been properly counseled, she would have chosen to reenlist rather than extend her military service contract because she had a Selective Reenlistment Bonus or to take the appropriate actions to request cancellation of the extension when she was eligible to do so.  In view of the foregoing, we believe any doubt in this matter should be resolved in her favor.  Accordingly, we recommend that her records be corrected as indicated below.

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that the 14-month extension of her 12 January 2000 enlistment for a period of four (4) years, executed on 31 March 2003 and approved on 25 April 2003, be declared void.
________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered document number BC-2004-00288 in Executive Session on 29 July 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

All members voted to correct the records, as recommended.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 20 Jan 04, with attachments.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAE, dated.3 March 04. 
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 March 04.
	Exhibit E.  Applicant’s Rebuttal, undated.

			Panel Chair

AFBCMR BC-2004-00288

MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

	Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:

	The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that the 14-month extension of her 12 January 2000 enlistment for a period of four (4) years, executed on 31 March 2003 and approved on 25 April 2003, be, and hereby is, declared void.

		
		Director
		Air Force Review Boards Agency