RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-02914 INDEX CODE:	100.06
XXXXXXX	COUNSEL:	NONE
HEARING DESIRED:	NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of 3E “Second-term or career airman who refused to get retainability for training or declined to attend PME,” be removed from her records.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
She attempted to comply with the requirements of the Noncommissioned Officer Retraining Program (NCORP) process, however, she missed suspenses for turning in her retraining application due to her misunderstanding of several email notices she received from AFPC.

In support of her application, applicant provides an email, and letters from her superintendent and coworkers.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Information extracted from the Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS)  indicates  the  applicant  entered  active  duty  on
19 June 2002. She was progressively promoted to the grade of Staff Sergeant (E-5) effective and with a date of rank of 1 June 2007.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit C.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial and states that the applicant should have completed the requirements outlined in the NCORP announcement messages. She was aware of the program and its requirements, but failed to submit the application as required. She was coded as noted in the 13 May 2008 memo from the 56 MOS Superintendent. They note one of the additional documents finally submitted by the applicant that verified she met the 2-year patient care requirement and immunization training was not completed until 4 February 2008, after the mandatory suspense date. This memo was signed by the same 56 MOS Superintendent.

The Air Force has historically retrained second term and career airmen from overage AFSCs into shortage specialties to optimize the enlisted force structure to best meet current and future requirements. The applicant had an obligation to complete the application, but failed to do so. The applicant states she misunderstood the suspensed email reminders from retraining officials; however, she did not seek clarification from the OPR but took a wait-and-see position until she received the 4 February 2008 notice and attempted to take action after the fact.

The applicant failed to meet the requirements for involuntary retraining. It is not possible for the applicant to be retrained under the FY08 NCORP as that program/objective has closed. Another noncommissioned officer (NCO)  was involuntarily selected to take her place. As such, the RE code of 3E is appropriate.

AFPC/DPSOA's complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states that she was notified in 2007 about the NCORP. She had started a package for retraining; however, she decided to wait. On
14 December 2007, she was notified that she was in a non voluntary status under the NCORP and had to retrain into the 4N051C career field. She found out about missing the deadline after a colleague who was going through the same process brought it to her attention.

Applicant's complete response is at Exhibit E.

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 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-2008-02914 in Executive Session on 20 November 2008, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

Chair Member Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2008-02914:

Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 22 Jul 08, w/atchs. Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.	Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 3 Sep 08, w/atchs. Exhibit D.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 Sep 08.
Exhibit E.	Applicant’s Response, dated 20 Oct 08.