RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-03116 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His 19-month extension executed on 19 December 2011 be corrected to show an extension period of 6 months rather than 19 months establishing his Date of Separation (DOS) as 1 January 2013 to cover his retainability needed for his current assignment. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His 19-month extension is not valid because it was filed after the High Year of Tenure (HYT) was changed for the grade of senior airman (SrA) from 10 years to 8 years; therefore, the extension should have been voided based on this change and not being able to exceed his HYT. He requested to cancel his 19-month extension within the 30-day period after his Consecutive Overseas Assignment from Korea to Germany was cancelled. He was informed by the Military Personnel Flight (MPF) personnel that his contract was voided and would be removed from his record. He was later informed that his extension had not been cancelled because he would not have had enough retainability to complete his Permanent Change of Station (PCS) back stateside and would have to remain in Korea until his Expiration Term of Service (ETS) if the extension was cancelled. He was advised to keep the entire extension until he received an assignment and was told he would be able to cancel his extension by immediately reenlisting for his desired four years in order to retain his assignment. He received his new assignment to Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, on 14 November 2012, so he began inquiring into reenlisting. At this time, he was informed that he was ineligible to cancel his extension due to exceeding the 30-day assignment cancellation window. He is confident that the personnel he interacted with had no intention to misinform him; however, he took their reasoning as fact and as such, he is currently in this predicament. In support of his appeal, the applicant provides copies of his extension contract, denial of extension cancellation, assignment cancellation notification, and his extension cancellation appeal. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ _ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant extended his 1 July 2013 DOS for 19 months on 19 December 2011, establishing his DOS as 1 February 2015, to obtain retainability for his PCS to Korea and a follow-on assignment to Germany. On 2 March 2012, he was notified of the PCS to Germany being cancelled due to the new HYT rules. The remaining relevant facts, extracted from his official military service record, are contained in the evaluation by the Air Force office of primary responsibility at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ _ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: ARPC/DPSOA recommends denial. DPSOA states the applicant initialed the statement on his extension form indicating “I understand if the original reason for which I extended is cancelled; I may request cancellation of this extension provided I have not entered it. I must request cancellation within 30 CALENDAR DAYS of the date I am notified the original reason for which I extended no longer exists. Failure to cancel the extension within the 30 CALENDAR DAY time limit will be considered a willingness on my part to serve out the extension.” There is no evidence that the applicant requested cancellation within the 30-day cancellation window. Had he cancelled his 19- month extension when his original PCS was cancelled, he would have had to immediately complete another extension for six months to give him 12 months of retainability to receive a stateside assignment when he returned from overseas. The applicant contends his extension contract should be considered erroneous since it has a “Filed Apr 02 2012” stamped on it, and the HYT change was effective 19 December 2011. However, they are not sure what the applicant is trying to point out as far as the HYT changes, since his eight-year HYT date was 2 July 2015 and the 19-month extension only had him serving to his current DOS of 1 February 2015; well short of his HYT date. Although he contends he requested to cancel his 19-month extension contract within the 30-day cancellation window, he has not provided any evidence or statements from personnel he talked to in support of his contentions. The complete DPSOA 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 15 October 2013, for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). As of this date, this office has received no 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 an 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 its rationale as the basis for our conclusion 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-2013-03116 in Executive Session on 1 April 2014, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-03116: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 31 Mar 12, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Enlistment Documents. Exhibit C. Letter, ARPC/DPT, dated 5 Jun 12, w/atchs. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Jun 12. 3 4 5