RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2016-03494 

 						COUNSEL: NONE

 						HEARING DESIRED:  YES

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His 34 month extension of enlistment dated 11 Sep 14 be canceled and replaced with a 12 month extension of enlistment.  

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

In Sep 14, he extended his enlistment for 34 months to qualify for a follow-on assignment from Osan AB, Korea to RAF Mildenhall, UK.  

On 9 Mar 15, he received an Article 15.  As a result, he was no longer eligible for an overseas permanent change of station (PCS) assignment.  He attempted to cancel his 34 month extension within 30 days of his assignment cancelation and extend for 12 months to qualify for a Continental United States (CONUS) return assignment as required.  However, his Military Personnel Section (MPS) was unable to cancel the 34 month extension of enlistment due to the Article 15 which prevented him from reenlisting or extending his enlistment.

Upon termination of the negative quality force codes for the Article 15, he again attempted to change his extension to 12 months.  However, his MPS denied his request as he was now outside of the 30 day window to request cancelation in accordance with AFI 36-2606, Reenlistment in the USAF.  

Upon arrival at Lackland AFB, TX he was advised an exception to policy (ETP) signed by his commander was required to request a change to his extension.  His commander denied his request for an ETP based on unit manning and determination that there was no injustice.  

His Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) was added to the Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) list on 1 Feb 16 with a multiple of 5.0.  However, because of his 34 month extension of enlistment, he was not able to reenlist to receive the SRB.  The 34 month extension is an injustice. 

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is in the Regular Air Force currently serving in the grade of Technical Sergeant (TSgt, E-6). 

Per AF Form 1411, Extension or Cancellation of Extensions of Enlistment in the Regular Air Force (REGAF)/Air Force Reserve (AF Reserve)/Air National Guard (ANG), dated 11 Sep 14, the applicant extended his enlistment for 34 months to obtain PCS retainability.  

AF Form 3070A, Record of Nonjudicial Punishment Proceedings (AB thru TSgt), dated 18 Feb 15, shows he received an Article 15 for drunk and disorderly conduct at Osan AB, Korea on 7 Feb 15.  He was reduced to the grade of Senior Airman (SrA, E-4), suspended through 3 Sep 15.  

On 18 Dec 15, he was reassigned to Joint Base San Antonio (JBSA) Lackland, TX.  

The applicant provides a letter of support from the Manager of the 25th Air Force Intelligence Standards and Evaluation, JBSA-Lackland, TX dated 15 Aug 16, which states the applicant attempted in July and Oct 15 to cancel his 34 month extension.  However, his request was denied due to it being outside the required window.  He was advised by his MPS he would need to appeal to the AFBCMR.  

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 C.    

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DP3ST recommends denial.  It is clear he is only trying to cancel the extension in order to reenlist with the SRB.  

The applicant’s follow-on assignment was canceled on 16 Mar 15 due to the Article 15.  Per AFI 36-2606, paragraph 6.12.4, airmen must request cancelation of an extension no later than 30 days following notification that the original reason for the extension was canceled or the Air Force will consider the airman as willing to serve out the extension.  There is no evidence he requested cancelation of his extension within the 30 day period.  Had he requested cancelation of the extension, his request would have been approved since the reason for the extension was canceled.  

DP3ST believes the applicant did go to the MPS to request cancelation of his 34 month extension after his assignment was canceled but after being advised he would not be able to get the 12 months of retainability required to obtain an assignment during the normal assignment cycle due to the Article 15 and that this would result in his date eligible for return from overseas (DEROS) to be involuntarily extended, he chose to not cancel his extension.    

All of the applicant’s evidence to support he requested cancelation of his extension is dated on or after 2 Feb 16.  This is because his AFSC was added to the SRB list on 1 Feb 16, with a 5.0 multiple.  On 2 Feb 16, he sent an inquiry to AFPC asking if he could reenlist prior to his expiration term of service (ETS) on 19 Feb 16.  On 4 Feb 16, after being told the 34 month extension would be considered as obligated service, he initiated an ETP.  The ETP has not been received by AFPC and the applicant states his commander did not support the request. 

A complete copy of the AFPC/DP3ST evaluation is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

He was never afforded an opportunity to cancel his 34 month extension.  His MPS informed him a CONUS mandatory movers’ list would be released in Jul 15 at which time he would need to apply for an assignment.  The list included only one assignment option applicable for his grade and AFSC.  Assignment desirability was not a concern.  

There is no evidence to suggest he would not have been eligible to reenlist or extend.  Per AFI 36-2606, Table 5.6, serving a suspended punishment is listed as barring immediate reenlistment.  The unfavorable information file (UIF) remains after the suspended punishment is completed and a member with a UIF is not eligible for reenlistment without commander approval.  There is no way to determine if his commander would have signed an AF Form 418, Selective Reenlistment Program Consideration, approving his reenlistment.  There are many “what if” scenarios that could have taken place.  Because of the uncertainty of the situation, he was essentially trapped into making an overnight decision of potentially ending a 12 year career or sitting safely with a 34 month extension intended for an assignment that had been canceled.

He is not trying to hide or deny that his inquiry to AFPC on 2 Feb 16 stemmed from the fact that his AFSC was placed on the SRB list.  This was his third attempt to resolve this matter.  He knew in Mar 16 after receiving the Article 15 and losing his assignment that his extension needed to be reduced to meet the minimum required retainability in order to have any future chance at an SRB. Had his extension been rightfully canceled and replaced with a 12 month extension, he would have legitimately received his Zone C, with a multiple 5.0, SRB.  He did not have a feasible option to terminate the 34 month extension due to the Article 15 which essentially forced him to remain in his extension.  AFI 36-2606 does not provide guidance for members in his situation.  He is currently working on and seeking guidance to change AFI 36-2606 to consider members in similar situations.  

A complete copy of the applicant’s submission 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.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an 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 (OPR) and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Furthermore, the applicant is reminded an SRB is an incentive program, not an entitlement.  Backdating extension or reenlistment contracts solely to permit payment of a bonus essentially offers an incentive for a decision already made and provides a bonus for a period of service already served.  In view of the above and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief.

4.  The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

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-2016-03494 in Executive Session on 13 Feb 18 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	 , Panel Chair
	 , Member
	 , Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2016-03494 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 Aug 16, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Excerpts of Personnel Records
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DP3ST, dated 17 Nov 16.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 13 Sep 17.  
	Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 23 Oct 17.