RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-00483 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reenlistment contract and AF Form 1089, Leave Settlement Option be amended to allow him the opportunity to sell back 30 days of accrued leave. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: In 2011, while stationed at Little Rock Air Force Base, Arkansas, he reenlisted to get retainability for a short-notice Permanent Change of Station (PCS) assignment to Kadena Air Base, Japan. When he arrived at Kadena, he was advised that he did not have enough retainability. After he received another assignment to Third Air Force, approximately 13 months later, he learned his previous reenlistment did not consummate. He informed the personnel technician that he reenlisted at his previous base prior to his PCS assignment to Kadena. He was notified by the Military Personnel Flight (MPF) that his reenlistment was not updated in the Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS), nor was a copy in the Personnel Records Display Application (PRDA). He was informed he would have to reenlist again, at which time he requested to sell 30 days of leave and was told he was authorized. He does not recall being offered this entitlement at Little Rock and since he never reenlisted in 2011, he questioned the ability to sell back 30 days of accrued leave. He was told by both the MPF and Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) that he could sell back leave because there was no MilPDS update or record of his reenlistment in the system. In Jul 12, the Kadena MPF changed the date of his reenlistment contract to reflect 14 Sep 11 (his original reenlistment date) versus 30 Jul 12 (new reenlistment date) as reflected on the AF 901, Reenlistment Eligibility Annex to DD Form 4 and DD Form 4/2, Enlistment/Reenlistment Document Armed Forces of the United States. The MPF updated MilPDS to reflect his original reenlistment date (14 Sep 11) and typed “reconstructed copy” on the top of his contract, which according to subject matter experts (SMEs) in the personnel field, should not have been done. He signed a new AF Form 1089, Leave Settlement Option because he did not get paid for the leave he previously attempted to sell back. He should not be penalized from taking advantage of a congressional entitlement worth $6,400 because of clerical errors, a counselor’s poor understanding of the rules or an aggressive duty schedule coupled by multiple PCS assignments within a short period of time. In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal statement, AF Form 901; DD Forms 4/1 and 4/2; and AF Form 1089. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in the grade of chief master sergeant. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force, which is at Exhibit B. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial. DPSOA states that the applicant made no attempt to sell leave until the authorized amount of carryover year-to-year was slated to return back to 60 days effective 30 Sep 13. DPSOA states that the applicant believes he was not given the option to sell back leave when he reenlisted on 14 Sep 11; however, all reenlistment and extension worksheets asks if a member wants to sell back any leave. In addition, the applicant does not deny he did not request to sell back leave on 14 Sep 11 or provide any proof he was not aware he could sell back leave at that time. DPSOA states that the applicant did not try to sell leave when his contract was reaccomplished on 30 Jul 12. DPSOA states that the Air Force announced the “Expiration of Leave Carryover Extension” on 30 Oct 12, and it was not until after that the applicant attempted to sell leave by completing an AF Form 1089, dated 15 Nov 12. DPSOA states that the applicant provided a copy of his AF Form 1089; however, it is not valid because leave cannot be sold once an airman reenlists. The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit B. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 6 Apr 13, for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit C). As of this date, this office has not received a response. ________________________________________________________________ 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 are not persuaded the applicant has been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our decision that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. In view of the above and 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 BC-2013-00483 in Executive Session on 15 Oct 13, under the provisions of AFI 36- 2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 13 Jan 13, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 1 Apr 13. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Apr 13. 1 2