RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  94-04682
            INDEX CODE: 128.00

            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED: Yes

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be awarded full payment of all back pay and allowances.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The reasons the applicant believes the records to be in error or unjust  and
the evidence submitted in support of the appeal are at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

In an application dated 29 April 1987,  the  applicant  requested  that  his
rank of technical sergeant (E-6) be restored.

On 15 September 1987, the Board  considered  and  recommended  granting  the
applicant’s request that his  demotion  from  technical  sergeant  (E-6)  to
staff sergeant (E-5) on 15 December 1986 under the provisions of AFR  39-30,
be declared void and removed from his records, and  his  date  of  rank  and
effective date of promotion to technical sergeant  (E-6)  be  restored.   It
was further recommended that, provided he completes  the  necessary  testing
in  the  same  period  specified  by  AFR  35-8  and  attains  the  required
qualifications, he be provided supplemental consideration for  promotion  to
the grade of master sergeant (E-7)  for  all  appropriate  cycles  beginning
with 88A7. (Exhibit C)

In an application dated 19 January 1988, the applicant  requested  that  (1)
he be reinstated in the Air Force at the grade of master sergeant  (E-7)  or
his reenlistment eligibility code be upgraded to one allowing enlistment  in
the Reserves, and  (2)  all  information  pertaining  to  his  discharge  be
deleted from his records.

On 2 March 1989, the Board considered and recommended (a) His demotion  from
technical sergeant (E-6) to staff sergeant (E-5) on 15 December  1986  under
the provisions of AFR 39-30, be declared void thus  restoring  his  date  of
rank and effective date of  promotion  to  technical  sergeant  (E-6)  to  1
August 1984,  as  previously  directed;  all  documents  pertaining  to  and
references to this demotion be removed from his  records;  and  all  rights,
privileges and property of which he may have been deprived as  a  result  of
this action  be  restored.   (b)  He  was  eligible  for  consideration  for
promotion to the grade of master sergeant (E-7) commencing with cycle  88A7;
he be given supplemental consideration for promotion to the grade of  master
sergeant  (E-7),  with  any  disqualifying  factors  waived   by   competent
authority, for all appropriate cycles beginning with 88A7; and, if  selected
and if his promotion sequence number occurs  prior  to  27  June  1987,  his
records shall be corrected to show his promotion  to  the  grade  of  master
sergeant (E-7) prior to separation.  (c) On 27 July 1987, he  was  honorably
discharged in the grade of technical sergeant (E-6) or master  sergeant  (E-
7), depending upon the results of  supplemental  consideration;  the  reason
for his separation was “Convenience of the Government”; and he  was  awarded
reenlistment eligibility code RE-1J.  (Exhibit D)

In an application dated 29 August 1990, the applicant requested that (1)  he
be promoted to master sergeant (E-7),  (2)  he  be  reinstated  into  active
duty, (3) the time out of the service be counted towards retirement, (4)  he
receive all back pay and allowances, and (5) the portion  of  his  Selective
Reenlistment Bonus, which was recouped, be reimbursed.

On  16  July  1991,  the  Board  considered  and  recommended  granting  the
applicant’s request for a service  retirement  from  the  Air  Force  to  be
effective 1 May 1991 (completion of 20 years of active duty).  As  a  result
of  the  recommended  corrections,  any  monetary  benefits  to  which   the
applicant  was  entitled  would  be  handled  by  the  Defense  Finance  and
Accounting Service (DFAS-DE), Denver, Colorado.  Therefore, the  applicant’s
request for reimbursement of any SRB recoupment would  be  based  on  DFAS’s
computation of his monetary entitlements.  The Board was  not  persuaded  to
grant applicant’s request for promotion to  master  sergeant  (E-7)  through
the correction of records process. (Exhibit E)

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  Acting  Chief,  Claims  Section,  Directorate  of   Debt   and   Claims
Management, DFAS-DE/FYDEC, reviewed the  application  and  states  that  the
applicant was reinstated to active duty (AD) for  the  period  25 July  1987
through 30 April 1991 and then was retired.  The member  was  paid  all  pay
and allowances (basic pay, basic allowance  for  quarters,  basic  allowance
for subsistence, variable housing allowance, clothing, accrued leave) for  a
total of $100,824.56.  This amount was offset by his civilian  earnings  for
the same period of $100,618.06 for a net amount due for AD pay for  $206.50.
 His retired pay amount was $3,135.02.  After taxes, the member  received  a
check for $2,508.02.  He protested the check amount.   Finally  he  accepted
the check and he was aware acceptance of the check  would  release  the  Air
Force from further liability pertaining to his claim for this  AFBCMR.   The
accrued leave was based on 60 days payable (the maximum allowable  by  law).
The applicant’s  selective  reenlistment  bonus  (SRB)  was  not  reinstated
because the SRB had stopped prior to his first  separation,  24  July  1987.
The SRB is controlled  by  another  office.   There  are  no  provisions  to
compensate a member for unemployment.  Based  on  the  evidence,  they  find
there has been no error or injustice and recommend denial  of  the  member’s
request.

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit F.

The Chief, Skills Management  Branch,  Directorate  of  Personnel  Prg  Mgt,
AFPC/DPPAE, reviewed the  application  and  states  that  a  review  of  the
applicant’s file indicates he reenlisted on 23 November 1984 for four  years
and received an SRB Zone C, bonus payable until 16 years of service.   Based
on his Total Active Military service of  12  April  1971,  he  completed  16
years service on 12 April 1987.  Therefore, they must  conclude  that  since
his bonus entitlement expired at 16 years of service and he separated  after
that date, he must have  received  his  SRB  payments.   The  applicant  has
provided no evidence to indicate that he was not paid the SRB prior  to  his
separation.  Therefore, they recommend his request be denied.

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to  the  applicant  on  3
June 1996, for review and response.  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 probable error or injustice.  Applicant’s contentions are  duly
noted; however, we agree with the opinion  and  recommendation  of  the  Air
Force and adopt their 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.

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 issue(s) 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 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  on  12  May
1999 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Terry A. Yonkers, Member
                 Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 28 Nov 94, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Directive, dated 15 Sep 87.
   Exhibit D.  ROP, dated 16 Apr 89.
   Exhibit E.  ROP, dated 29 Aug 91.
   Exhibit F.  DD Form 149, dated 28 Nov 94, w/atchs.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, DFAS-DE/FYDEC, dated 28 Aug 95.
   Exhibit H.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 21 May 96.
   Exhibit I.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 3 Jun 96.





                                   VAUGHN E. SCHLUNZ
                                   Panel Chair