RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03826 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His extension of enlistment be changed to include a zone B Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) for 48 months or replaced with a constructive reenlistment. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was miscounseled regarding his extension. He was informed he was outside of his window and therefore ineligible to reenlist at that time. In order to secure 36 months retainability for re-languaging at Defense Language Institute, he was forced to extend for 8 months. He was told he could cancel the extension upon arrival at Ft. Gordon, GA and inturn reenlist. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant currently serves in the Regular Air Force in the grade of staff sergeant (E-5). On 19 Jan 10, the applicant was counseled by Military Personnel Flight (MPF) via the AF IMT 1411, Extension or Cancellation of Extensions of Enlistment in the Regular Air Force/Air Force Reserve on his extension request and his available options. On 22 Jan 10, the applicant requested his current enlistment that he entered on 10 Dec 07 be extended for a period of eight months for the purpose of qualifying for retraining. On 29 Jan 10, the applicant’s request for his extension was approved and his Date of Separation (DOS) was extended for eight months from 9 Dec 13 to 9 Aug 14. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility which is attached at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial, indicating all documents were completed correctly and he was afforded the appropriate counseling. At the time the applicant extended, he needed eight months retainability in order to meet the requirement to retrain. The applicant was not eligible to reenlist at the time of his extension because he had too much obligated service. He had 46 months of obligated service and the most a service member is allowed to have in order to qualify to reenlist is 36 months. The applicant states he was forced to extend for eight months; however, he t initialed on the AF IMT 1411, Section IX “Additional Extension Counseling,” that he understood he can elect to extend between 36 months and 48 months and be entitled to an SRB even though less retainability is required. The SRB payment would be based on the SRB multiple level in effect on the date the applicant signed Section II of the form. The applicant elected to extend for eight months instead of exercising the option of extending between 36 and 48 months. If the applicant had extended for 48 months with the zone B multiple 6.0 SRB, he would not have been entitled to any payment until he entered into the extension on 10 Dec 13. He was counseled that he could extend with entitlement to payment of a zone B multiple 6.0 SRB for up to 48 months. The MPF personnel indicate they did not know if the applicant was hoping to receive a service-directed retainability for more training or retainability for change of assignment which would allow him to reenlist and receive the SRB payment immediately. Nevertheless, the applicant was counseled on his options back in Jan 2010. He reported to his new assignment on 25 Jul 12, but did not require retainability based on his DOS. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reiterates his argument that he was miscounseled when told he was outside his window for reenlistment and therefore, could not reenlist to obtain the necessary retainability for retraining. He stated that the counselor reviewed the form with him and explained that, at that time, he had too much obligated service time remaining in order to extend for more than the controlled duty assignment (CDA) requirement. He was told that the extension in section IX of the AF IMT 1411 was not an option for him, at that time, but after arriving his follow-on assignment, he could cancel the 8 month extension and apply for the full 48 month extension, which would allow him to receive an SRB upon entering the said extension. The applicant argues that according to AFI 36-2606, Table 3.3 (it is actually, AFI 36-2626, Table 3.3.), a second term or career airman must have, or be able to obtain, 36 months (for the 1N3XX – Crypto Linguist, career field) or 14 months past class gradation date/OJT effective date (whichever is greater) without entering High Year Tenure restrictions. His original DOS of 9 Dec 13 only left 16 months retainability after reporting to his new duty station. After extending for eight months, his new DOS is 9 Aug 14, not 12 Sep 14 as stated in the Air Force Advisory, which still does not meet the full requirement of 36 months. A complete copy of the applicant’s response 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, including his response to the Air Force evaluation, 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 its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. While the applicant’s arguments are duly noted, other than his own assertions, he has provided no evidence whatsoever that would lead us to believe that his decision to request an eight month extension to his enlistment was the result of an error on the part of the Air Force. 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 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-2012-03826 in Executive Session on 12 Mar 13, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 14 Aug 12, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 5 Oct 12. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Oct 12. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 23 Nov 12.