RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  99-01180
            INDEX CODE:  128.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


____________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be entitled to a retroactive Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB).

____________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He states that in January 1986, he crossed trained from vehicle operator  to
air traffic controller.  The military  personnel  flight  (MPF)  at  Keesler
AFB, instructed  him  to  reenlist  before  accepting  cross  training  from
technical school.  He questioned the situation  as  to  whether  or  not  he
could extend for a designated time frame to graduate from technical  school,
then reenlist so he would be eligible for the bonus.  Personnel  at  Keesler
AFB, stated that he had to reenlist before he could be  approved  to  attend
technical school and it was  mandatory  for  him  to  reenlist  rather  than
extend just to secure a technical training school slot.   Through  no  fault
of his own he was forced to reenlist as a vehicle operator.  This  made  him
ineligible to obtain the air traffic control bonus.

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

____________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 17 November 1981, the applicant enlisted in the Air Force  Reserve  under
the Delayed Entry/Enlistment Program for a period of six years.

On 6 May 1982, the applicant  was  honorably  discharged  from  the  Delayed
Entry/Enlistment Program and on 7 May 1982, he enlisted in the  Regular  Air
Force for a period of four years.




On 20 December 1985, the applicant reenlisted in the Regular Air  Force  for
a period of four years.

The applicant retrained from the vehicle operator career field into the  Air
Traffic Controller (ATC) career field under the CAREERS program.

The applicant entered the Technical School at Keesler AFB, MS on  8  January
1986, to complete the Air Traffic Control Operator course E3ABR27230.

On 1 April 1986,  the  applicant’s  Air  Force  Specialty  Code  (AFSC)  was
authorized a Zone A, Multiple 2, SRB.

On 1 May 1986, the applicant graduated from  Air  Traffic  Control  Operator
course.

The applicant was  honorably  discharged  on  19  December  1989  under  the
provisions of AFR 39-10 (Expiration Term of Service).

On 15 May 1990, the applicant enlisted  in  the  Regular  Air  Force  for  a
period of four years, and entered active duty.

The applicant reenlisted on 8 April 1994 and 2 April 1998 for periods  of  4
years, and is currently serving in the Regular Air Force  in  the  grade  of
technical sergeant.

____________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief,  Skills  Management  Branch,  Directorate  of  Personnel  Program
Management,  HQ  AFPC/DPPAE,  reviewed  this  case  and  states   that   the
applicant’s case file indicates he  retrained  under  the  CAREERS  program.
Based on the time that has elapsed since the retraining action,  it  is  not
possible to determine whether an extension  of  his  enlistment  would  have
satisfied the retainability requirements to accept  the  retraining  action.
As a first-term airman, the applicant could have extended for a total of  23
months.  This extension would normally  satisfy  the  service  retainability
for retraining requirements only if the  controlled  duty  assignment  (CDA)
for the ATC course was less than 23 months and technical  school  completion
date was prior to his initial  date  of  separation  of  6  May  1986.   The
applicant has provided no documentation  to  confirm  his  technical  school
training dates nor evidence as to the specific CDA for retraining  into  the
ATC specialty during that  period.   Therefore,  they  recommend  denial  of
applicant’s request.

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

____________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the evaluation and  states  that  if  cross  training
procedures had been properly explained to him in 1986 he could have  applied
for a 30-day retainability waiver as indicated in  AFI  36-2107.   He  would
have completed the training with the prescribed time  frame  the  Air  Force
required.  Retainability could have been met with an  extension.   Had  that
not been sufficient, a waiver  would  have  been  obtained.   None  of  this
information was presented  to  him.   He  was  instructed  that  he  had  to
reenlist  before  attending  technical  school.    He   states   that   this
information was incorrect and he feels  that  he  should  receive  the  same
bonus his fellow air traffic controllers received for the same duty.

Applicant's complete response, with attachments, is attached at 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.   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  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.

____________________________________________________________

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 November 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                  Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Edward C. Koenig, Member
                  Mr. Gregory W. Den Herder, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 21 April 1999, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAE, dated 13 July 1999.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 2 August 1999.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 16 August 1999, w/atchs.





                                THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                Panel Chair