RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-00912
            INDEX CODE;  128.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Time-in-Service (TIS) be reviewed and the Special Separation Bonus
(SSB), offered in 1992, be reinstated.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was eligible for SSB  and  should  have  received  SSB  and/or  the
opportunity to stay on active duty.  He was briefed on his eligibility
for SSB and chose  to  separate  under  SSB.   He  received  discharge
paperwork to be discharged on 15 July  1992  and  that  in  June,  the
separations office notified him that he would have to get out  without
the bonus, with no explanation.  Since he turned down his orders to go
to Luke AFB, he was under the  impression  that  he  had  to  get  out
without any recourse.

In support of his request, the applicant submits a personal  statement
and a copy of his DD Form 214 (Exhibit A).
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Army National Guard on 5  November  1982
for a period of 6 years.   On  11  February  1985,  he  was  honorably
discharged from the PA Army National Guard, Reserve of  the  Army,  to
enlist in the United States Air Force.  He had completed a total of  2
years, 3 months and 7 days of service at the  time  of  his  discharge
from the Army National Guard.

Applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular  Air  Force
on 12 February 1985 in the grade of airman (E-2) for  a  period  of  4
years.  On 17 March 1989, he reenlisted in the Regular  Air  Force  in
the grade of  sergeant  (E-4)  for  a  period  of  4  years.   He  was
progressively promoted to  the  grade  of  staff  sergeant,  with  the
effective date and date of rank of 1 October 1991.  On 31 August 1992,
the applicant was honorably discharged from the Regular Air  Force  in
the grade of staff sergeant (E-5), under the provisions of  AFR  39-10
(Expiration Term of Service).  He had completed a total of 7 years,  6
months and 19 days of active duty service.

On 1 September 1992,  the  applicant  enlisted  in  the  Arkansas  Air
National Guard (ARANG) for a period of 1 year.  On 31 August 1993,  he
was  relieved  from  his  assignment  with  the  ARANG  and  honorably
discharged from the ANG, Reserve of the Air Force, under the provision
of ANGR 39-10 (Expiration Term of Service).
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Retirements Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPRR, reviewed this  application  and
recommended denial.  DPPRR stated that the  applicant’s  Total  Active
Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD)  is  7  November  1984.   DPPRR
reviewed the applicant’s service dates and indicated  that  his  total
active service was from 12 February 1985  through  31 August  1992  (7
years, 6 months and 19 days).  Applicant separated on 31  August  1992
due to expiration term of service.  The applicant was not eligible for
the  FY92-93  Special  Separation  Bonus  (SSB)   program.    Eligible
populations had to have at least 9  years  of  total  active  military
service  as  of  31  December  1992.   The  applicant’s   Reenlistment
Eligibility (RE) code at the time of separation was 3D, which  defined
means “second-term or career airman who refused  to  get  PCS  or  TDY
assignment retainability.”  Applicant’s RE code  prior  to  separation
was 3V, which  defined  means  “Separated  with  Voluntary  Separation
Incentive (VSI).”

DPPRR stated that no supporting documentation for his claims has  been
provided  .   The  applicant’s  RE  codes  do  validate  some  of  his
statements,  however,  they  do  not  clearly  support  an  error   or
injustice.  RE code 3D shows that  the  applicant  had  an  assignment
which he declined to get retainability for, therefore,  he  separated.
RE code 3V shows  the  possibility  of  some  type  of  miscounseling,
however, the applicant has not substantiated  this.   DPPRR  indicated
that based on the RE code 3V, it is possible that  the  applicant  may
have been briefed  on  eligibility  for  SSB  and  the  recommendation
updated in the Personnel Data System (PDS).  Once the request  arrived
at AFPC, the request was  probably  disapproved  or  returned  without
action based on applicant’s ineligibility due  to  not  having  enough
time in service.  Since the applicant  had  already  turned  down  the
assignment and declined retainability, his separation was acted upon.

The applicant  stated  that  since  he  turned  down  his  orders  for
assignment he was under the impression that he had to get out  without
any recourse.  DPPRR stated that the applicant has not  submitted  any
documentation to show what steps, if any, he took to  stay  on  active
duty.  It is DPPRR’s belief that if  the  applicant  had  pursued  the
issue of miscounseling in the summer  of  1992,  he  would  have  been
offered reenlistment, unless there were other mitigating circumstances
involved of which they are unaware.

A complete copy of this evaluation is appended at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and indicated that his pay
date of 5 November 1982 must have been the  date  the  Base  CBPO  was
going on when he was told to attend a meeting on the SSB/VSI  program.
He was offered and accepted the program and was told to turn down  his
orders.  His separation paperwork was rescinded less than 1  month  to
his being scheduled to separate, not giving anyone sufficient time  to
act, since he was advised by the base CBPO that since he  turned  down
his orders, he had to separate on  his  scheduled  date.   He  had  no
counseling or opportunity to attempt any kind of  recourse.   He  does
not have evidence of these  events,  other  than  the  copies  of  his
separation paperwork and the obvious miscounseling.   Based  on  these
events, he requests that his VSI benefit, as chosen and given in 1992,
be reinstated (Exhibit E).
_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing  law
or regulations.

2.  The application was not  timely  filed;  however,  it  is  in  the
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the  existence  of  probable  error  or  injustice.   The  applicant’s
submission was thoroughly  reviewed  and  his  contentions  were  duly
noted.  However, no evidence has been submitted to indicate  that  the
applicant pursued any recourse for reenlisting once it was  determined
that he did not meet  the  eligibility  requirement  for  the  FY92-93
Special Separation Bonus (SSB) program.  We therefore 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.  In the absence of evidence  that  the  applicant  met  the
established criteria for separation under the SSB program or that  his
request for reenlistment was denied, 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 probable  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 6 October 1998, under the provisions of  AFI  36-
2603:

                  Mr. Michael P. Higgins, Panel Chair
                  Ms. Ann L. Heidig, Member
                  Mr. Steven A. Shaw, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 26 Mar 98, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRR, dated 1 Jun 98, w/atch.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 22 Jun 98.
   Exhibit E.  Letter from applicant, dated 23 Jun 98




                                   MICHAEL P. HIGGINS
                                   Panel Chair