RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-05160
	XXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His 9-month extension of his 10 Jul 07 enlistment be voided.

________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He never agreed to nor signed any extension paperwork.  Despite 
the lack of documentation in the Military Personnel Data System 
(MILPDS) of the agreement, he was given an extension to his 
enlistment without his knowledge.

His enlistment was erroneously extended and he request the 
extension be dismissed and his original Date of Separation (DOS) 
be reinstated.  His original DOS was 9 Jul 13 and his new DOS is 
9 Apr 14.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 10 Jul 07, the applicant enlisted in the regular Air Force 
for a period of 6 years establishing his DOS as 9 Jul 13.  In 
Aug 10, he volunteered and received a Consecutive Overseas Tour 
(COT) assignment from Japan to Hawaii with a 30 Apr 11 reporting 
date.  The tour length for his assignment was 36 months from the 
reporting month; so he needed a nine month extension to receive 
his orders and proceed to the assignment.  His orders, dated 
2 Mar 11, in item 12, reflects a DOS of 9 Apr 14; which was 
established by the nine month extension.  

________________________________________________________________

THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial, stating, in part, that the 
applicant contends he never signed extension documents and was 
given an extension without his knowledge.  There are no 
extension documents in applicant's records, although the nine 
month extension is updated in the personnel and finance data 
systems, the applicant would not have been allowed to receive 
orders or proceed on assignment without obtaining the required 
retainability.  DPSOA believes the extension documents were 
completed and misplaced before they could be added to 
applicant's personnel records.  DPSOA directs that missing 
documents be reaccomplished when the extension period of the 
missing documents match the retainability requirement.  
Otherwise, members would not be allowed to receive benefits 
without first obtaining the required retainability.  The 
applicant's DOS has been 9 Apr 14 in the personnel and finance 
systems since Mar 11.  Additionally, the applicant would have 
been showing up on a weekly mismatch roster with a date arrive 
station of 11 Apr 11, if his DOS did not match his Date Eligible 
to Return from Overseas (DEROS) date of 11 Apr 14.

The complete AFPC/DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the 
applicant on 11 Jan 13 for review and comment 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 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.  In 
addition, while we are not certain as to the circumstances 
surrounding the applicant’s paperwork for the extension, based 
upon the presumption of regularity in the conduct of 
governmental affairs and without evidence to the contrary, we 
must assume that the applicant's extension was proper and in 
compliance with appropriate directives.  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-2012-05160 in Executive Session on 15 Aug 13, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 31 Oct 12. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFP/DPSOA, dated 19 Dec 12.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Jan 13.




                                   Acting Panel Chair