RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02168 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His expiration term of service (ETS) should be 7 Mar 15 rather than 7 Mar 17. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He enlisted in the Air National Guard under the PALACE CHASE program for a four-year period; however, his recruiter made a mistake and enlisted him for a six-year period. In support of his appeal, the applicant provides copies of his enlistment order and other documents associated with his enlistment. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 22 Jan 08 for a period of four years. On 7 Mar 11, the applicant was released from active duty by reason of intradepartmental transfer, with service characterized as honorable. He was credited with 3 years, 1 month, and 16 days of active duty service. The applicant enlisted in the California Air National Guard, on 8 Mar 11, for a period of 6 years. ________________________________________________________________ THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: NGB/A1PS recommends denial. They note the subject matter expert has conducted a thorough examination of the available evidence and found that the applicant signed his enlistment contract and during the completion of the contract, had three opportunities to point-out the fact there were errors with the document and instead of highlighting the errors, he signed the documents anyway. The complete NGB/A1PS evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 18 Nov 11 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D). ________________________________________________________________ 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 error or 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 that 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 the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2011-02168 in Executive Session on 28 February 2012, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 6 Jun 11, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, NGB/A1PS, dated 8 Nov 11, w/atch. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Nov 11.