RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-03163 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His date of separation (DOS) be changed from 1 July 2018 to 1 July 2016. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was mistakenly guided during his first reenlistment. He was directed to reenlist by the military personnel flight (MPF). The MPF informed him that he was within 180 days of the expiration term of his service (ETS) and must attend a mandatory reenlistment briefing. He contacted the office to confirm the briefing was required even though he had already extended for 23 months. He was again told that he had to attend the briefing. He trusted the expertise of the office and attended the briefing. When he received the DD Form 4/1, Enlistment/Reenlistment Document Armed Forces of the United States, he was not given the correct explanation regarding the 23 months he initialed. He was told the 23 months was the military service obligation that he would be subject to recall after separation. He learned of his DOS when transferring his Post-9/11 GI Bill to his wife. He was informed that he did not need to extend due to his 2018 DOS. It was also at that time, he was told the 23 months he initialed obligated him to 23 months of active duty service. He did not have any intention of reenlisting for more than four years from 2 August 2012. He was not reenlisting for an enlistment bonus or for the Post-9/11 GI Bill. In support of his appeal, the applicant provides DD Form 4/1, email correspondence and AF IMT 1411, Extension or Cancellation of Extension of Enlistment in the Regular Air Force/Air Force Reserve. 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 staff sergeant. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this case are contained in the letter prepared by Air Force office of primary responsibility which is listed at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 8 August 2006 for a period of six years establishing his ETS and DOS as 7 August 2012. He extended on 7 July 2010 for 23 months to qualify for an assignment which established his DOS as 7 July 2014, while his ETS remained 7 August 2012. He was notified by e-mail on 8 June 2012 that he was scheduled for a mandatory briefing to discuss his options and ask questions. He was eligible to reenlist any time before his 7 August 2012 ETS, once he entered his extension, his new reenlistment window would have been the 90 day period before his 7 July 2014 DOS. His only options were to reenlist for 4 years and 23 months or not reenlist and enter his 23 month extension on 8 August 2012. He chose to reenlist. The applicant states he was told he had to reenlist. This does not make sense as it is clear he had a 23 month extension he could have entered. He knew his DOS was 7 July 2014, so it is unclear why he would reenlist knowing his DOS was 2 years away. The complete DPSOA 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 30 August 2013, for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). 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. The applicant's complete submission was thoroughly reviewed and his contentions were duly noted. However, we do not find the applicant’s assertions and the documentation presented in support of his appeal sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by Air Force office of primary responsibility. Therefore, we agree with their opinion and recommendation and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion and find that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. 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-2013-03163 in Executive Session on 20 March 2014 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 23 Jun 13, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 5 Aug 13. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Aug 13. 1