RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:				DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-01769
								INDEX CODE:  100.06
	XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX			COUNSEL:  NONE

								HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  4 December 2008

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code “3E” (Second-term or career airman who refused to get retainability for training or retraining or declined to attend PME) be removed from his record and he be available to retrain.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was misinformed.  On 8 January 2007, he submitted a request for retraining as directed.  During a commander’s call, it was briefed to have the request submitted and wait for a position to be filled.  On 31 January 2007, he received an e-mail that the documents needed to be completed to finalize the application.  He was never informed as to the suspense date, and two senior NCOs advised him on 30 March 2007 that if he had not turned in the completed application by 28 February 2007, he would be out of the service by 1 August 2007.  Everything he did was done because he was following orders.  Everything he didn’t do was because he wasn’t directed to do so.

In support of his appeal, he has furnished copies of four pages of a “discussion thread” between himself and AFPC.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The Noncommissioned Officer Retraining Program (NCORP) is a multi-purpose, two-phase program designed to rebalance the enlisted force by moving NCOs from career fields with overages to those skills experiencing shortages, and to provide NCOs with a voice in their career development.  

On 26 July 2006, HQ AFPC announced implementation of the FY07 NCORP, and identified over 3,000 NCOs, by order of vulnerability, susceptible to retraining.  In the announcement message, they asked NCOs to voluntarily apply for retraining into an Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) of their choice during Phase I (voluntary) of the program that ran from 26 July 2006 – 18 September 2006.  If voluntary targets were not met in any AFSC, Phase II (involuntary) would be implemented, and Phase II was subsequently implemented and ran from 3 January 2007 – 31 May 2007.  All vulnerable NCOs identified as vulnerable in Phase I were given until 15 January 2007 to submit an initial request, followed by a suspense of 28 February 2007 to submit a completed application.  Selection of vulnerable NCOs was made across all eligible year groups, mirroring assignment eligibility (i.e., sorted by date of rank; those with the least time in grade (TIG) will appear at the top of the list).  The Air Staff targeted 180 SSgts in the applicant’s AFSC for retraining into the 3P0C1A, Military Working Dog or 3P0X1B, Combat Arms, AFSCs only, and the applicant was number 218 on the list of vulnerables.

The applicant submitted an initial retraining application on 8 January 2007.  He signed and dated the FY07 Phase II NCORP Memorandum on 11 January 2007, and this memorandum stated the 28 February 2007 suspense date for submission of completed applications.  On 31 January 2007, the Air Force Contact Center (AFCC) advised him that he met the qualifications for both AFSCs, and to submit his completed application along with all required documents.  He did not make any further contact with the AFCC until 30 March 2007, was subsequently coded with an RE code of “3E”, and currently has a projected date of separation of 12 December 2007.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPAE recommends denial.  The applicant failed to complete his retraining application under Phase II of the NCORP, even though he was fully aware of the program requirements.  He has failed to prove an error or injustice exists, and there is no alternative solution available.  To permit removal of this RE code seriously undermines the program and, most of all, is unjust to those that complied and were selected for involuntary retraining because of his inaction.  He is one of approximately 300 NCOs that failed to take responsibility as a member of the profession of arms and as an NCO in the USAF.  His own inaction placed him in this predicament; therefore, the RE code of 3E is correct.

The AFPC/DPPAE evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 13 July 2007, for review and comment, within 30 days.  However, 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 an 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.  Evidence has been presented that the applicant failed to complete his retraining application under Phase II of the NCORP even though he signed the FY07 Phase II NCORP Memorandum on 11 January 2007 which clearly stated the 28 February 2007 suspense date.  Additionally, the Air Force Contact Center (AFCC) contacted him on 31 January 2007, and advised him to submit his completed application along with all required documents; however, he did not initiate any further contact with them until 30 March 2007.  Therefore, in the absence of 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 Docket Number BC-2007-01769 in Executive Session on 6 November 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 24 May 07, w/atch.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 27 Jun 07, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 Jul 07.