RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-00591
            INDEX CODE:  136.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES



_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His record be corrected to reflect eligibility for benefits under  the
Reserve Transition Assistance Program (RTAP).
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The Air Force Reserve Civil Engineering Master Sergeant  (AFSC  55570)
position in the old Production Control was abolished  in  Fiscal  Year
1994 (FY 94).  As such, the Production Control section was changed  to
Force Management and its AFSC to 3E5X1 encompassing only  the  maximum
grade of technical sergeant (E-6).  As a reservist and master sergeant
(E-7) in this career field, he was directly affected by  this  change.
At  this  crossroads,  it  was  the  Air  Force’s  responsibility   to
officially declare his rights under RTAP or exercise reasonability for
his retention.  It did not.  The drawdown in civil engineers in FY  94
reduced its primary work  force  from  17  to  11  AFSCs.   Since  his
position was abolished, he  could  neither  recertify  nor  enroll  in
correspondence courses.  It was  absolutely  impractical  to  get  his
employer, Department of Defense, to approve such an extensive leave of
absence to attend these training schools (average school  ranged  from
17 to 24 weeks).  If the position was abolished at FY 94,  then  there
was no reason for  him  to  not  have  remained  in  the  459th  Civil
Engineers Squadron until it was.  Instead, he was forced  out  of  the
reserves ahead of schedule.

The Air Force withheld information crucial to  his  transition,  which
prevented him from choosing options adequately and appropriately.  The
guidance and direction received from the  Air  Force  was  misleading,
ambiguous and untimely.   He  was  never  told  about  RTAP.   He  has
provided organizational charts of 5 Aug 94 and 13 Mar 93  as  evidence
on how the squadron was designed  under  the  new  structure  for  the
period referenced.  He asks the  Board  to  evaluate  and  review  the
factors and circumstances presented at all levels in its consideration
for granting this entitlement.  The type  of  treatment  received  was
unjust and contributed to forfeiture of  his  rights  to  further  his
career as well as to receive subsequent  compensation  and  retirement
credits.

In support of his request, the applicant submits a personal statement,
letters from his senator  and additional documents associated with the
issues cited in his contentions.   These  documents  are  appended  at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant had prior service with the U.S. Army Reserve (13 Sep  66
- 23 Mar 79).  On 24 Mar 79, he enlisted in the Air National Guard and
Reserve of the Air Force; and, on 5 Sep 84, was  honorably  discharged
in the grade of staff sergeant  (E-5)  from  the  Air  National  Guard
(District of Columbia) and Reserve of the Air Force for the purpose of
enlisting  in  the  Air  Force  Reserve  (AFRES).   His   last   AFRES
reenlistment was on 8 Mar 92, in the grade of master  sergeant  (E-7),
for a period of 4 years (date of separation of 7 Mar 96).

On  15  Oct  94,  the  applicant  was  assigned  to  the  Nonobligated
Nonparticipating Ready Personnel Section (NNRPS).  On 10  Aug  95,  he
applied for transfer to the Air Force Retired Reserve List,  effective
30 Sep 95.  Effective 21 Aug 95, the  applicant  was  reassigned  from
NNRPS to the Inactive Status List Reserve Section (ISLRS).  On 30  Sep
95, he was assigned to the Retired Reserve Section in the grade of E-7
and placed on the Air Force Reserve Retired List, awaiting pay at  age
60.  He  was  credited  with  21  years,  11  months  and  8  days  of
satisfactory Federal service.

The relevant facts pertaining to this application 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 Directorate of Personnel, HQ AFRC/DPM, has determined  from  their
evaluation of the applicant’s case that he is not eligible for Reserve
Transition Assistance Program (RTAP) benefits.  DPM indicated that the
FY96 Force Structure, Realignment and Management actions  resulted  in
the  459th  Airlift  Wing’s  Civil   Engineer   Squadron   losing   77
positions/authorizations, effective 1 Oct 95.  Of the  77  losses,  74
were enlisted and  3  were  officers.   The  459th  Civil  Engineering
Squadron experienced two reductions within  the  applicant’s  AFSC  of
3E5X1 (Civil Engineer Operations),  the  authorized  grade  for  these
reductions were E-5 and E-4 (senior airman).  DPM  stated  that  these
facts alone completely eliminate the applicant  from  eligibility  for
RTAP as his previous position was not affected  by  force  reductions.
He requested a voluntary retirement on 10 Aug 95,  with  an  effective
date of separation of 30 Sep 95.  The applicant is clearly  ineligible
for RTAP benefits because he was not affected by force reductions  and
he initiated voluntary retirement, which was effective  prior  to  the
effective date of  the  force  reduction  actions;  and,  he  was  not
assigned to either of the positions  identified  for  force  reduction
actions (Exhibit C).
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the advisory opinion  and  indicated  that  the
advisory opinion is inaccurate.  It does not identify  the  facts  and
specifics surrounding the disposition  of  the  referenced  Air  Force
Reserve position nor does  it  cite  the  correct  period  when  these
changes occurred.  Since he was directly involved in the  manning  for
the 459th CE Squadron, he must reject the advisory  opinion  statement
of fact, which is a direct reverse of the manning structure authorized
for that period.  He is prepared to provide  the  names  of  at  least
seven airmen who are recipients  of  RTAP  benefits  whose  Air  Force
circumstances were comparable to his - two of whom  are  chief  master
sergeants (E-9).  He expects the Air Force to  either  grant  him  the
RTAP benefits, or approve his reinstatement to  Ready  Reserve  status
with compensation for loss of pay (Exhibit E).
_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The Directorate of Personnel, HQ  ARPC/DSZ,  completed  an  additional
review of the applicant’s case and determined that  the  applicant  is
not eligible for RTAP benefits because he was not  affected  by  force
reductions and he initiated voluntary retirement.  DSZ stated  that  a
manpower review was conducted for FY93 and FY94 period on Andrews AFB,
MD.  During  this  review,  it  was  determined  there  were  internal
organizational  realignments  and  Air  Force  Specialty  Code  (AFSC)
conversions.  However, the total manpower authorizations by grade  and
AFSCs did not change during the referenced period.  The data  analysis
did not reflect any  reduction  in  force  actions.   The  applicant’s
position was not  affected  by  force  reductions  for  FY93  or  FY94
(Exhibit F).
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

He stated that the advisory statement, which  alleged  total  manpower
authorizations did not change, is in error.  The  FY93/94  realignment
and AFSC conversions  provided  notice  that  manning  for  the  Force
Management (production control) grade of E-7 would be abolished 1  Oct
94.  He was advised that he had to either cross-train in a new  career
field or be reassigned to the Air Reserve Personnel Center (ARPC) by 1
Oct 94 if he was to remain a member of the Reserves.  On that account,
he was denied the opportunity and right for  RTAP  entitlements  under
Public Law 102-484, 23 Oct 92,  as  others  were  not.   The  advisory
statement, which alleged  that  there  were  no  reductions  in  force
actions for FY93/94 and that his position was not affected,  is  again
in error.  The reorganizational chart of 5 Aug 94, which he  provided,
and/or the supervisory of 13 Mar 93  clearly  illustrate  the  manning
structure and realignment actions, which excluded the E-7 grade  being
corroborated for  the  FY93/94  time  period.   Development  of  these
organizational charts was required to  meet  the  realignment  actions
directed  by  AFRES  for  FY95.   This  loss  emerged  from  a  billet
inactivation, which resulted in an  involuntary  separation  in  FY94.
Consequently, the position was non-existent in FY95.

His appeal for RTAP entitlements has been supported and  substantiated
continually with evidence from exhibits and documents at the inception
of his claim to present.

A copy of his response is appended at Exhibit H.
_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The Relocations Branch,  HQ  AFRC/DPML,  reviewed  the  organizational
charts submitted by the applicant and stated that the charts  are  not
evidence of a higher  headquarters  directed  force  reduction  action
which entitles members to RTAP benefits.  DPML’s review  and  advisory
are based on research and analysis by HQ AFRC Manpower Division, which
is the authoritative source for such information.   HQ  AFRC  Manpower
Division cited in their memorandum that there was indeed an Air Force-
wide AFSC conversion and internal organizational realignments, but  no
force reduction actions of the kind  that  entitled  members  to  RTAP
benefits.  DPML stated that the applicant is  clearly  ineligible  for
RTAP benefits because he was not affected by force reductions  and  he
initiated voluntary retirement (Exhibit I).
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

He is in agreement with Section IV of the Procedural Guidance  of  the
FY95 Air Force Selected Reserve Policy for  the  RTAP  as  related  to
reserve members having greater than 20 years of satisfactory  service,
but under age 60.  All documentation previously submitted  is  clearly
supported by the eligibility criteria stipulated  under  this  section
for  enlisted  retirement  with  RTAP,  to  include  Reserve   Special
Separation Pay (RSSP) benefits, and is justified as follows:

      1.  Based upon deletion of his position (not locally generated),
he is eligible for benefits under RTAP, with  RSSP.   He  has  greater
than 20 years of satisfactory service and is under age 60.

      2.  There were no positions available in either his awarded AFSC
or through retraining (not requiring a  demotion),  within  reasonable
commuting distance, in either the unit or IMA program to  further  his
military reserve career.

      3.  The unit commander did not provide proper  notification  and
disclosure on specific procedures relating to manpower changes and the
impact that these changes had on his reserve status  and  the  options
that were available to him.

A copy of his response is appended at Exhibit K.
_________________________________________________________________

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.  We took notice  of  the
applicant's complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the  case.
However, we are not convinced by the evidence  provided  that  he  was
eligible for benefits under the Reserve Transition Assistance  Program
(RTAP).  In this respect, we note that the  applicant’s  position  was
not affected by  force  reductions  for  FY93  or  FY94  and  that  he
initiated voluntary retirement.  We therefore agree with the  opinions
and recommendations of the appropriate Air Force offices and adopt the
rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that  the  applicant
has failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered either an  error
or an injustice.  By way of additional information, we noted that  the
applicant expressed an interest in being reinstated to  Ready  Reserve
status.  We are not inclined to recommend reinstating the applicant to
Ready Reserve status; however, if he wished,  he  could  explore  this
option on his own by applying for a Reserve position  before  age  60.
In view of  the  foregoing  and  absent  sufficient  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  in
Executive Session on 3 August 1999, under the provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                  Mr. Robert W. Zook, Panel Chair
                  Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Member
                  Ms. Dorothy P. Loeb, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 23 Feb 98, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFRC/DPM, dated 20 Apr 98, w/atchs.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 11 May 98.
   Exhibit E.  Letter from applicant, dated 10 Jul 98.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, HQ AFRC/DPM, dated 23 Nov 98.
   Exhibit G.  Letters, AFBCMR, dated 9 Dec 98, and SAF/MIBR,
                21 Dec 98.
   Exhibit H.  Letter from applicant, dated 24 Dec 98, w/atchs.
   Exhibit I.  Letter, HQ AFRC/DPML, dated 25 Jan 99, w/atchs.
   Exhibit J.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 25 Mar 99.
   Exhibit K.  Letter from applicant, dated 7 Jun 99.




                                   ROBERT W. ZOOK
                                   Panel Chair