RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02408
		INDEX CODE:  

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED: NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her 17-month extension be cancelled and her 28 July 2004 reenlistment be corrected to total only 4 years.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was offered an assignment that required additional retainability.  To accept the assignment, she extended her enlistment by 17 months.  After extending her enlistment she was notified of a follow-on assignment that would also require additional retainability.  Had she known of the follow-on assignment, she would have reenlisted earlier instead of extending her current enlistment.  

In support of her appeal, the applicant has provided copies of her reenlistment documents, her extension paperwork, orders for both assignments and a Report of Individual Personnel (RIP).

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 5 March 2004, she was notified of an assignment to Osan AB, Korea for which she needed additional retainability.  In order to accept this assignment she applied for a 17-month extension of her enlistment.  The extension was approved and her new Date of Separation (DOS) was 4 December 2005.  On 15 July 2004, she was notified of a follow-on assignment to Aviano AB, Italy that she needed additional retainability to accept.  She reenlisted on 28 July 2004, and incurred a service obligation of 4 years and 15 months – a four-year reenlistment and the 15 months remaining on her previous 17-month extension.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPAE recommends denial.  DPPAE states she received the assignment notification to Korea on 5 March 2004.  She had to obtain additional retainability within 30 days (4 April 2004) to accept the assignment.  Her extension was not approved until 19 April 2004 – 15 days past the 30-day deadline with which to obtain the retainability.  The offer had not expired however, and DPPAE therefore considers the 17-month extension a valid one.  She then received notification of a follow-on assignment on 15 July 2004.  After notification, she had to reenlist for four years in order to accept the assignment.  Both sets of retainability were obtained for valid reasons and should not be cancelled or changed.  She chose to extend rather than reenlist for her first assignment even though she knew there was a chance she would receive a follow-on assignment.  She signed a valid extension form for the first assignment and then reenlisted for four years.  The fifteen remaining months of her extension must remain part of her obligation.

DPPAE’s complete 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 10 September 2004 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

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 their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  The applicant chose to extend rather than reenlist for her first assignment and signed a valid extension form for the first assignement due to assignment requirements. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling 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-2004-02408 in Executive Session on 13 October 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 30 August 2004.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 September 2004.