RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: 98-02110
                 INDEX CODE 128.08
                 COUNSEL:  None

                 HEARING DESIRED:  No
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be granted a waiver to allow him full separation pay in  compliance
with the MPFL 95-37 change, dated 7 June 1995, as it is written.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The reasons applicant believes he has been  the  victim  of  an  error
and/or an injustice are contained in his complete submission, which is
at Exhibit A.

A copy of applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

By Article 15 action on 26 November 1997, the applicant  was  given  a
suspended  reduction  from  staff  sergeant  to  senior   airman   for
committing adultery between, on or about 27 October 1996 and 5 January
1997. He was also fined and given extra duty.  However,  on  15  April
1998 the suspended reduction was vacated because he signed an official
record (Leave Request/Authorization) on 29 January 1998 with intent to
deceive. He was reduced to the grade of senior airman with a  date  of
rank of 26 November 1997. He was separated on 25 January 1999.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted
from the applicant's military records, are contained  in  the  letters
prepared by the appropriate offices of the  Air  Force.   Accordingly,
there is no need to recite these facts in this Record of Proceedings.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Military Personnel Management Specialist, HQ  AFPC/DPPRS,  advised
that    applicant’s    commander    denied     his     request     for
extension/continuation  of  active  duty  which  made  him  not  fully
qualified for retention and therefore ineligible for  full  separation
pay. His appeal does not warrant an exception to Department of Defense
(DOD) and Air Force policy. Denial is recommended.

A copy of the complete Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit C.

The Chief, Skills Management Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPAE, advised  that  his
commander’s and Military Personnel Flight (MPF) chief’s disapproval of
his request for an extension  was  appropriate  according  to  current
directives. There is no evidence of error or injustice.

A copy of the complete Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  applicant  reviewed  the  advisories  and  contends  there  is  a
misconception as to what his application is about. At the time he  was
being processed for discharge for a separation date of 17 August 1998,
he was fully qualified  for  retention.  His  status  did  not  change
officially until October 1998.  Actions  were  taken  because  of  the
unclear MPFL 95-37 message.  He and his family had to use their life’s
savings and this hardship was unnecessary.

His complete rebuttal is at Exhibit F.
_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The Chief, Skills  Management  Branch,  reevaluated  this  appeal  and
advises that the Article 15 action that resulted in his  reduction  to
the  grade  of  senior  airman  also  rendered  him   ineligible   for
reenlistment. In accordance with  AFI  36-2606,  Reenlistment  in  the
United States Air Force, reenlistment eligibility (RE) code 4D, “Grade
is Senior Airman or Sergeant, completed at least 9 years’  TAFMS,  but
fewer than 16 years’ TAFMS,” was applicable in  his  case.  The  Chief
provides a copy of the AF Form 1411 showing  the  applicant’s  request
for an extension of 11 months for the purpose  of  separating  at  his
high year of tenure (HYT) was denied on 2 October 1998.

A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit G.

The Military Personnel  Management  Specialist,  HQ  AFPC/DPPRS,  also
reviewed the case and indicates the applicant had more than  13  years
of service and should have been retained for one promotion  cycle  and
his HYT established at the fourth month after  the  promotion  release
date. However, this did  not  have  any  effect  on  his  reenlistment
eligibility since at the time of  his  separation  he  was  not  fully
qualified  for  retention.   Unit   commanders   determine   retention
eligibility. The applicant’s unit commander denied  his  extension  of
enlistment, thereby rendering him not fully  qualified  for  retention
and making him eligible for only half  separation  pay.  HQ  AFPC/DPPR
8106  Message,  Clarification  to  E-4  HYT  Program  and   Processing
Procedures, dated 21 September 1995, was  effective  on  the  date  of
transmission.

A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit H.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL EVALUATIONS:

Complete copies of the additional evaluations were  forwarded  to  the
applicant on 6 August 1999 for review and response in accordance  with
established policy.  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. After a thorough  review
of the evidence of record  and  applicant’s  submission,  we  are  not
persuaded he should be awarded  full  separation  pay.  The  commander
denied the applicant’s extension of enlistment, thereby rendering  him
not fully qualified for retention. Consequently, he was  eligible  for
only half separation pay. The applicant has  not  provided  persuasive
evidence to warrant  his  being  made  an  exception  to  policy  with
entitlement to full separation  pay  as  he  requests.  Therefore,  we
recommend this appeal be denied.
_________________________________________________________________

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 30 September 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:

                  Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Patrick R. Wheeler, Member
                  Ms. Rita J. Maldonado, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 13 Jul 98, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 6 Aug 98.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAE, dated 6 Oct 98.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 19 Oct 98.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 25 Oct 98, w/atch.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAE, dated 8 Jul 99, w/atchs.
   Exhibit H.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 14 Jul 99, w/atch.
   Exhibit I.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 6 Aug 99.




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair