RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-01938
		INDEX CODE:  108.00
	XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  NONE

	XXXXXXXXXXXXX	HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His retraining approval date be corrected to 29 April 2004.  

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He turned in his completed retraining package on 15 April 2004.  He was notified on 15 May 2004 that his package had been lost at the Major Command (MAJCOM) Functional Manager’s (MFM) office for several weeks and they were working on resubmitting his package.  On 1 June 2004, he was notified that his retraining package was approved.  If his paperwork had not been lost, he would have been approved before 30 April 2004.  

In support of his application, the applicant provides a copy of his retraining package and an e-mail confirming his package had been lost at his MAJCOM.  The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the rank of senior airman (E-4) with a date of rank of 15 May 2003.  His Total Active Federal Military Service Date is 28 November 2000, when he enlisted for six years.  

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPAE recommends the applicant’s request be denied.  DPPAE states that the applicant was disqualified from his previously held Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) 2W1X1, Aircraft Armament Systems, and has been approved for retraining into AFSC 3C0X1, Communications-Computer Systems Operations.  Even though his retraining package was misplaced at the MFM, it had no negative impact.  His first choice request for retraining to AFSC 3C0X1 was approved and he has a class start date of 8 November 2004.  It is DPPAE’s opinion that there is nothing to support the course of correction requested by the applicant.  The AFPC/DPPAE 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 23 July 2004, for review and comment within 30 days.  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 injustice.  The applicant asserts that since the MFM lost his retraining request (Air Force Form 4032, Application for Enlisted Retraining), he did not qualify for the Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) for Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) that ended on 30 April 2004.  We note that if his retraining request had been approved by the MFM not later than 29 April 2004, he would have been entitled to an SRB in Zone A, Multiple 5, for AFSC 3C031.  While the MFM admits to losing the applicant’s package after they received it on 5 May 2004, we note the delay had no effect on the applicant’s entitlement to an SRB.  Even though the applicant does not include it in his contentions, it appears there was a delay between the time the Squadron Section Commander approved the retraining package on 15 April 04 and the time it was approved by the Military Personnel Flight (MPF) on 4 May 2004.  The applicant has not provided any evidence showing he had obtained all of the required endorsements, on his retraining application prior to the SRB qualifying date.  Therefore, we concur with the Air Force office of primary responsibility that the delay at the MFM had no negative impact on the applicant’s retraining request.  Based on the preceding information, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force advisory and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Accordingly, the applicant’s request is not favorably considered.  

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

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 this application in Executive Session on 15 September 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

The following documentary evidence for AFBCMR Docket Number 
BC-2004-01938 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 14 Jun 04, with attachments.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 21 Jul 04.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Jul 04.