RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-01959
		INDEX CODE:  110.00
	 	COUNSEL:  NO
		HEARING DESIRED:  YES
					
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: Dec 22, 2008

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 3E (second-term or career airman who refuse to get retainability for training or retraining or decline to attend Professional Military Education (PME)) be removed from his records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was entered into the Noncommissioned Officer Retraining Program (NCORP) Phase II Involuntary Retraining Program.  He completed the initial application to retrain on or about 16 Jan 07.  He did not receive further guidance regarding retraining.

He was under the impression that he was not being considered and would be able to continue in his current career field of 3E051 (civil engineering).  

No one in his chain of command, commander’s support staff, or military personnel flight (MPF) was notified that he was required to submit a retraining package.

He was informed of his ineligibility to reenlist in May 07 with a separation date in July 07.  

He did apply for cross-training and the RE code is in error.

In support of his request, the applicant provided a letter from AF/A7CM.

The applicant's complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant was discharged on 28 Jul 07 in the grade of staff sergeant (SSgt). 

He was denied reenlistment based on a message from AFPC/DPPAET on 3 Jan 07 for failing to complete a retraining package as directed.

Other relevant facts are outlined in the AFPC/DPPAE opinion at Exhibit C.   

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPAE recommends denial of the request.  The applicant failed to complete his retraining application under Phase II of the program, although fully aware of the program requirements.  To permit removal of his 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.  The applicant is one of approximately 300 NCOs that failed to take responsibility as members of the profession of arms and moreover, as NCOs in the USAF.

The NCORP was 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 Jul 06, the Air Force Personnel Center announced implementation of the FY07 NCORP and identified over 3,000 NCOs, by order of vulnerability, susceptible to retraining.

In the announcement message, NCOs were asked 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 Jul to 18 Sep 06.  If voluntary targets were not met in any AFSC, Phase II (involuntary) would be implemented.

Phase II was implemented and ran from 3 Jan 07 to 31 May 07.  All vulnerable NCOs identified as vulnerable in Phase I were given until 15 Jan 07 to submit an initial request, followed by a suspense of 28 Feb 07 to submit a complete 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) would appear at the top of the list).  The Air Staff targeted 20 staff sergeants (SSgt) in this applicant’s AFSC for retraining-out and the applicant was number 34 on the list of vulnerables.

On 2 Feb 07 at 7:47 a.m., the Air Force Contact Center (AFCC) advised the applicant that he met the qualifications for the requested AFSC, that he would receive a separate e-mail identifying the documents required to complete the application, and that the next step would be to submit the complete application.

On 2 Feb 07, at 7:50 a.m., the AFCC advised the applicant on the additional documents required (i.e., AF Form 42, last three enlisted performance reports (EPRs), etc.) for the completed application.

On 27 Feb 07, the AFCC sent a reminder to the applicant due to not having received the completed application.  In light of the repeated reminders, the applicant’s assertion that he did not receive additional guidance is inexplicable.

The applicant filed an inquiry through his Congressman on or about 20 Jun 07, same subject.  Contrary to his statement on the DD Form 149, that “I did not receive any further guidance from AFPC regarding retraining,” the applicant was sent two separate e-mails within three minutes of each other from the AFCC.  In the applicant’s statement to his Congressman, he states, “After talking with the Chief Enlisted Advisor for the Civil Engineering Squadron (my squadron), I found out that this indeed had to be done.  I applied for one job through the vMPF (virtual Military Personnel Flight).  I later received an e-mail that said I had met all the requirements for the job I had chosen.”  The applicant’s comments to his Congressman clearly demonstrated he received the AFCC communications—both communications were sent within three minutes of each other.
 
The AFPC/DPPAE complete evaluation, with attachments is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 3 Aug 07 for review and comment within 30 days.  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 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 its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  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-2007-01959 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, w/atchs, dated 6 Jun 07.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  AFPC/DPPAE Memorandum, w/atchs, dated 12 Jul 07.
    Exhibit D.  SAF/MRBR Letter, dated 3 Aug 07.