RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-00628 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her date of separation (DOS) be corrected to reflect 26 Mar 11, instead of 13 Jun 12. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Her initial commitment was for 24 months, as reflected on her original Extended Active Duty (EAD) order. Her virtual Military Personnel Flight (vMPF) records reflected this for over a year and a half. She later took tuition assistance which resulted in her original DOS being adjusted to 26 Mar 11. Sometime later, AFPC advised that her original DOS was incorrect due to a glitch and took action to change it in the Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS) to reflect a four-year initial commitment. She feels it is unjust to change her DOS based on a “glitch in the system” when her plans were based on an established DOS of 26 Mar 11. AFPC’s action to extend her DOS when her original orders indicated a 24-month tour is unjust and unfair. In support of her request, the applicant provides copies of her initial EAD order and excerpts from her vMPF records. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant’s military personnel records indicate that she executed an Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps (AFROTC) Contract on 5 Feb 07. Included in the terms of the contract is a four-year active duty service commitment (ADSC) from the date of her entry on active duty. She commenced her initial period of active duty on 13 Jun 08. Her EAD orders reflect a tour length of 24 months in Item 7, For Personnel Going to Overseas Location. She has served continuously and was progressively promoted to the grade of first lieutenant (O-2), effective and with a date of rank of 23 May 10. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force, which are attached at Exhibits C and D. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPASL recommends denial, indicating the applicant incurred a four-year ADSC upon receipt of her appointment as a commissioned officer when she signed her initial commissioning contract. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPASL evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSIPR recommends denial, indicating the applicant accepted a four-year ADSC upon entering active duty. The reference to the 24 month tour length (item 7b on her EAD orders) was not a reference to her ADSC, but meant to indicate the tour length for personnel with an overseas assignment, and is therefore not applicable to the applicant. The applicant separated from active duty on 13 Aug 10 under the FY10 Force Management Program and transitioned to the Air Force Reserve where her service commitment date remains 13 Jun 12. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIPR evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 10 Sep 10 for review and response within 30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (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 in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices 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. 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-2010-00628 in Executive Session on 14 Oct 10, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 11 Feb 10, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPASL, dated 30 Mar 10. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSIPR, dated 2 Sep 10, w/atchs. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Sep 10.