RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-04393 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

Her term of enlistment be reduced from six years to four years. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

She washed out of her previous Air Force Specialty (AFS), Air 
Traffic Controller, which mandated a six year enlistment. She 
was involuntarily retrained into her current career field which 
does not have a mandatory enlistment term. She would have only 
enlisted for four years had she had the option. 

 

She requests her enlistment be curtailed so that she can become 
eligible for a base of preference (BOP) assignment to join her 
husband. While in her current enlistment, she will not be 
eligible for a BOP until the 59th month of her enlistment. If 
her enlistment were changed to four years, she could apply for a 
BOP after her 39th month. Her husband is an Air National 
Guardsman at Hickam AFB, Hawaii. He would incur a $60,000 debt 
if he were released from his enlistment contract. 

 

In support of her appeal, the applicant provides a copy of the 
AF Form 3008, Supplement to Enlistment Agreement – USAF, a copy 
of the AF Form 3007, Guaranteed Training Enlistment Agreement 
Non-Prior Service – USAF, supporting statements and documents 
from her master personnel record. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant is currently active duty serving in the grade of 
Senior Airman. On 24 February 2009, she signed the AF Form 
3007, guaranteeing her the Air Traffic Controller specialty. On 
that same date, she executed the AF Form 3008, Supplement to 
Enlistment Agreement – USAF, agreeing to enlist as an Airman 
First Class for a term of six years. 

 


On 19 March 2010, the applicant’s commander recommended she be 
withdrawn from the Air Traffic Control duties for Failure to 
Obtain a Rating. Specifically, the commander felt she was 
incapable of performing Air Traffic Controller duties. He 
recommended she be provided the opportunity to cross-train into 
a new career field. She was reclassified as a Paralegal 
Apprentice. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSIP recommends denial. The applicant agreed to a six 
year term of enlistment contract as a requirement to reserve a 
position in the AFS Air Traffic Controller. She was decertified 
in August 2010 and reclassified as a Paralegal Apprentice. 
Although she was decertified, she is still obligated to serve 
her six year term of enlistment. 

 

The complete DPSIP 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 1 March 2012, for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit C). 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 error or injustice. We took notice 
of the applicant’s 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’s 
decertification does not relieve her of the original six year 
obligation and that she 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 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-2011-04393 in Executive Session on 26 April 2012 under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 4 Oct 11, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSIP, dated 11 Jan 12. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Mar 12.