RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00788 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His date of separation (DOS) be corrected to reflect 22 July 2018 rather than 3 May 2018. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: On 3 May 2013, he entered into a reenlistment contract with the Air Force for a period of five years and three months. This enlistment contract was specifically setup so that it would take him to his high year of tenure (HYT) as a Technical Sergeant. However, unbeknownst to him, this contract violated AFI 36-2606, Reenlistment in the United States Air Force, Table 5-6, rule 6, which only allows terms of reenlistments in whole years. Thus, making him three months shy of his HYT date. The Force Support Squadron (FSS) personnel who accomplished his reenlistment documents were unaware of the change to the AFI, consequently reviewed, and accepted the incorrect DD Form 4/1-4/3, Enlistment/Reenlistment Document Armed Forces of the United States, contract. In August 2013, three months after the reenlistment, he noticed that the virtual military personnel flight (vMPF) and the Assignment management system (AMS) listed his HYT date as his DOS; however, the reenlistment contract was not uploaded to personnel records display application (PRDA) or the automated records management system (ARMS). Upon contacting the FSS, they informed him that there was an error with the contract and he would have to re-sign a new contract for five years instead of five years and three months. This is contrary to his intentions as he specifically planned this reenlistment to take him to the date of his HYT. Had he been aware that he would be three months shy of his HYT at the time he signed the initial contract he would have taken a different course of action. He requested a waiver of the AFI 36-2606 rule so that the Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC) could honor the original contract and maintain his DOS based on the reenlistment for five years and three months. His commander non-concurred with the waiver request based on advice/information from the local FSS noncommissioned officer in charge (NCOIC) and AFI 36-2606, table 5.6, rule 6. To ease his frustration his commander wrote and signed a letter with the subject line of “Reenlistment Contract Advice.” His new contract, which he refused to sign, was created without his approval. AFPC in conjunction with his local reenlistments office changed the dates in the military personnel database systems (MilPDS), vMPF, and AMS to reflect the (unsigned) 5-year re-enlistment contract instead of the dates of his signed, five years and three months, contract. He is not asking for a special privilege. His desire is for the Air Force to do the right thing and honor the promise made to him in the 3 May 2013 contract. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant entered the Regular Air Force on 22 July 1998 and is currently serving in the grade of Technical Sergeant, (TSgt), E-6, with an effective date and date of rank (DOR) of 1 November 2009. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit B. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. DPSOA states that the applicant reenlisted on 3 May 2013, for five years and three months, which established his date of separation (DOS) as 2 Aug 2018. The applicant’s term of enlistment (TOE) was erroneous because he was only authorized to reenlist in whole years per AFI 36-2606, table 5.6. This mistake was caught during an audit per Case Management System (CMS) number 5997149, and the applicant’s contract was corrected to reflect 5-years and 0-months; the contract was annotated at the top with “MEMBER REFUSES TO SIGN, CORRECTED COPY” and filed in the applicant’s record. Additionally, the personnel and finance systems were corrected to reflect the 5-years and 0-months TOE. DPSOA further states that the applicant will be able to extend his enlistment to HYT plus one month as current policy allows. This is the normal course of action for all enlisted members once they are within 24 months of their HYT. The complete AFPC/DPSOA evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit B. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In further support of his request, the applicant reiterates his contentions and states that some of the facts stated in the advisory opinion letter are completely false. The “mistake” was not caught during an audit. It was actually found out because he made persistent inquiries to the FSS asking why his re-enlistment document was not uploaded to the PRDA. He kept asking because he was concerned since all of the dates were correct in AMS and vMPF, but nothing was uploaded to the PRDA. He wants to ensure that the Board sees all of his submitted information to get the correct facts. The applicant’s complete response is at 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 an error or injustice. We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission, to include his rebuttal comments, in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice. We note that current policy allows the applicant to extend his enlistment to HYT plus one month within 24-months of his High Year of Tenure (HYT) as a Technical Sergeant. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief. 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-2014-00788 in Executive Session on 6 January 2015, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-00788 was considered: Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 20 Feb 2014, w/atchs. Exhibit B.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 7 Apr 2014 w/atch. Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Sep 2014. Exhibit D.  Message, Applicant, dated 14 Nov 2014.