RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-02087
		INDEX CODE:  128.06

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED: NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His eligibility for bonus/loan repayment entitlements be reconsidered.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was informed the he was eligible for the student loan and sign-up bonus upon applying to the Air National Guard (ANG).  After being commissioned, he was informed the benefits were no longer available.  These benefits were a significant part of his decision process - $30,000 cash bonus and $50,000 student loan repayment.  He would appreciate it if these benefits/incentives were reconsidered.

In support of his appeal, the applicant has provided copies of a letter to his commander, a letter from XXXX ANG (XX ANG) state HQ to the applicant’s commander, an email trail between the XX ANG HQ and HQ National Guard Bureau (NGB), and indorsements from the director of personnel and his commander.

His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

In April 2001, applicant contacted the XX ANG regarding available opportunities in the field of general dentistry.  He began the appointment process in April 2001, but it was delayed as he underwent LASIK eye surgery.  After a post-operation period, his physical examiniation paperwork was resubmitted and approved by waiver on 10 January 2002.  He was appointed in the XX ANG effective 6 April 2002.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ANG/DPPI recommends denial.  DPPI notes the bonus/loan entitlement was available for dentist appointees in fiscal year (FY) 01, when he applied, but not in FY02, when he was finally appointed.  DPPI states the changes in recruiting incentives available to dentists were appropriately publicized by ANG/DPFR on 14 September 2001.  Therefore, based on the incentive-eligible career fields proposed by the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) and incorporated into ANG guidance, the applicant has no basis for relief.

DPPI’s complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air National Guard evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 17 October 2003 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant's submission, we are not persuaded that his uncorroborated assertions of hearing about bonuses and/or loan repayment plans and receiving advertisements in the mail concerning such, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force.  We agree that contractural agreements signed by appointees and the government should be honored, however, the applicant was not able to produce signed copies of any contractural agreement between himself and the Air National Guard that would indicate he was promised any entitlements upon appointment.  Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air National Guard office of primary responsibility and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of having suffered either an error or injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling 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-2003-02087 in Executive Session on 6 January 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 17 Jun 03, w/atchs. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, ANG/DPPI, dated 26 Sep 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Oct 03.