RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  03-02606
            INDEX CODE:  111.02
            COUNSEL:  NONE
            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be given a 15 year retirement or he be reinstated in the  Air  Force  and
allowed to cross-train into the Recruiting Service  with  an  assignment  to
Phoenix AZ.  In addition, he requests his records be corrected to  show  his
entitlement  of  his  last  paycheck  with  no  payback  on  his   Selective
Reenlistment Bonus (SRB).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

While assigned as NCOIC of International Flight at Tyndall AFB, FL,  he  was
told he was going to be  involuntary  cross-trained  into  the  1C5D  career
field.  He  knew  that  if  cross-trained,  he  would  be  reassigned  after
technical school.  However, he was assured that  because  he  was  a  master
instructor he would stay at Tyndall AFB, FL.   The Senior  Enlisted  Advisor
(SEA) wanted him out of the unit  and  later  confirmed  that  the  SEA  had
called  the  Military  Personnel  Center  and  advised  them  that  he  (the
applicant) wanted out of Tyndall.  As a  result  of  this  reassignment,  he
lost thousands of dollars on his home and his family  had  to  endure  three
school changes and two reassignments in a 15-month period.

After his arrival at Hill AFB, UT, the officer  trainers  did  not  want  to
train enlisted controllers and his training records reflected  the  lack  of
training.   After  nearly  a  year  of  poor  training,   mistreatment   and
discrimination by his trainer, he decided to remove himself from  controller
training.  The Inspector General (IG) report explains what happened  to  him
and others during the 11 months of training.  All of the  training  officers
did not receive any form of punishment  and  were  promoted.   He  made  the
decision to request cross-training into PME, MTI, and recruiting.   He  felt
that he possessed what was required  for  these  positions.   Prior  to  his
involuntary cross training into weapons control, he had been  either  Airmen
of the Year or NCO of the Year at every base  where  he  was  assigned.   He
also won over 15 Airmen and  Noncommissioned  Officer  of  the  Quarter  and
Instructor of the Quarter awards and was awarded Enlisted Instructor of  the
Year.  He completed Community College of  the  Air  Force  (CCAF)  in  Space
Operation Technology and a Bachelor of Science  in  Business  Administration
and had started on his Masters.  He requested cross training  six  times  in
15  months  of  his  enlistment  before  he  decided   to   separate.    The
disapprovals were given even though his career field was 180 percent  manned
while recruitment was only 60 percent.  He asked the  career  field  manager
why he would not approve his cross-training and he was told that  "the  only
way you're going to get out of my career field is separate, retire or  die."


According to the IG  report,  not  only  was  training  not  completed,  the
leadership of the unit seemed indifferent to the problems.  In  April  1996,
there was a 23-month retainability requirement for the training, six  months
later the retainability was dropped.  He was  placed  back  into  the  1C5XX
career field 11 months after his enlistment.  The balance of  12  months  of
retainability should have been removed and  he  should  have  been  given  a
chance to reenlist under the 1C5XX career field instead he was  left  in  an
enlistment that did not match his Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC).   At  the
time of his separation his enlistment should have  been  adjusted.   Because
it was not he did not receive his last paycheck and lost 9.5 days of  leave.
 The Air Force is requesting recoupment of $411.96 for the  enlistment  they
should have removed from his records.  It appears to him that  the  officers
named in the IG report have discriminated against him  and  others  just  to
cover themselves for future promotions.

He  believes  there  is  a  clear  pattern  of  mismanagement,  abuse,   and
discrimination of his career after 1995.  He would still like to  serve  his
country and finish his career and retire  with  honor;  however,  not  as  a
weapons controller.

In support of his request, applicant submits a personal  statement,  a  copy
of the Summary Report of Investigation, a copy of his DD Form  214,  a  copy
of his Request and Authorization for Separation, a  copy  of  his  17  April
1996 enlistment documents and a copy of his  Leave  and  Earnings  Statement
for the period 1-21 September 2001.  Applicant’s complete  submission,  with
attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 17 April 1996, the applicant reenlisted in the Regular Air Force  in  the
grade of staff sergeant (E-5) for a period of six years.   He  was  credited
with 9 years, 7 months and 21 days of prior Regular Air Force  service.   An
AF Form 901, Reenlistment Eligibility Annex to DD Form 4, indicates that  at
the time of his enlistment of 17 April 1996, the applicant held AFSC  1C551D
and his Selective Reenlistment Bonus was paid in Zone B, with a Multiple  2,
based on 3 years and 7 months of obligated service.   The  applicant  signed
this form on 5 April 1996.  On 4 September 2001, the applicant requested  he
be separated from active duty effective 21 September 2001.  He was  relieved
from active duty in the grade of technical sergeant  effective  21 September
2001.  Applicant was credited with 15 years and  27  days  of  total  active
duty service.  The following is a resume of his EPR profile:

      PERIOD ENDING               PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION

      19 Jan 97                         5
      19 Jan 98                         5
      02 Jul 99                         5
      02 Jul 99                         5
      02 Jul 00                         5
      02 Jul 01                         5

An  IG  complaint  filed  by  another  student  contained  six   allegations
regarding deficiencies in the applicant’s former Air Control Squadron  (ACS)
Air Weapons Director (AWD) Training Program.  The primary objectives of  the
IG investigation were to assess if adequate  training  was  administered  to
students who failed AWD course and possible  OPR  statement  by  instructors
stating student failed training due to failure to  progress.   In  a  report
dated 20 June 1997, the Investigating Officer (IO) concluded  that  all  six
allegations were  substantiated.   The  IO’s  recommendation  was  that  the
complainant be given the option of being an AWD  at  another  unit  and  the
complainant’s OPR not reflect any derogatory  (e.g.,  failure  to  progress)
comments pertaining to training at the ACS and  that  the  AWD  trainee  who
failed training be given the option of reentering AWD training at  his  next
unit (i.e., has assignment to Korea).  The IO recommended  the  AWD  trainee
who self-eliminated himself from training be given the option of  reentering
AWD training at his former ACS or on his next assignment.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPAAD recommends the application be  denied.   DPAAD  states  that  the
1C5X1D (Weapons Director-WD) AFSC is not a separate AFSC, but  a  subset  of
the 1C5X1 (Slick) AFSC.  Training into the 1C5X1D from  the  basic  AFSC  is
not considered optional training; rather  continuation  of  training  within
the core AFSC and it applies to  everyone  in  the  career  field  based  on
eligibility.  When the applicant completed the formal training  for  WD,  he
incurred a 23-month Active Duty Service Commitment earning  an  SRB.   DPAAD
states that there are primarily two phases of being  a  WD.   Phase  one  is
Initial Skill Acquisition, which is considered AF level  training,  and  the
other is Initial  Qualification  Training,  considered  unit/weapons  system
specific.  The Air Force took no action for its convenience  to  remove  the
applicant  from  the  1C5X1D  subset.   Conversely,  the   applicant   self-
eliminated himself; therefore, he owed any unexecuted part of  the  original
bonus.  DPAAD acknowledges that  unit  training  deficiencies  and  possible
resentment were substantiated in an IG  investigation,  but  no  action  was
taken to remove the applicant from being a WD.   The  AFPC/DPAAD  evaluation
is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPAAD2 recommends the application be denied.  DPAAD2  states  that  the
reasons for the denials for cross training were based on the  needs  of  the
AFSC and the needs of the Air Force.  The 1C5X1 AFSC is  currently  and  has
historically  been  identified  on  the  chronic  critical,  stressed,   and
overseas  imbalanced  listings.   Barring   personal   hardship   or   other
justifiable circumstances, the Air Force assigns  people  based  on  mission
needs.  DPAAD2 states that over the past  five  years  or  so  approximately
four career airmen have been released to perform duties outside the  1C5X1/D
AFSC and these cases were hardship or extremely unique  circumstances.   The
AFPC/DPAAD2 evaluation is at Exhibit D.

DFAS-POCC/DE indicates that the applicant had  a  debt  of  $411.95  due  to
recoupment of a selective  reenlistment  bonus  and  $503.40  for  a  travel
advance.  The applicant has repaid $918.76 leaving  a  balance  of  $108.05.
The DFAS-POCC/DE evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit E.

AFPC/DPPAE recommends the application be  denied.   DPPAE  states  that  the
applicant voluntarily reenlisted in April 1996 for six years in 1C551D  AFSC
in Zone B with a multiple of 2.0 for 3 years and 7 months.   SRB  recoupment
was mandatory based on his separation program designator code due  to  early
separation  and  not  for  failure  to  progress  in  initial  qualification
training.  The AFPC/DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit F.

AFPC/DPPRRP recommends the application be denied.  DPPRRP  states  that  the
Secretary of the Air Force exercised Temporary Early Retirement  Act  (TERA)
authority from 1 May 1995 until 30 October 1995.   The  applicant’s  request
for separation was his voluntary action and at the time of  the  separation,
the enlisted TERA program was no longer  available  as  an  option.   DPPRRP
states that the applicant was not eligible to apply for an early  retirement
and voluntarily chose to be discharged.  The  AFPC/DPPRRP  evaluation,  with
attachments, is at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states that when he entered the Air Force in 1986, the 1C5XX  AFSC
was not undermanned.  The 1C5XX AFSC has been  in  this  situation  for  the
last ten to twelve years.  Leadership  has  been  promising  change  to  the
1C5XX AFSC for so long that airmen have given  up  hope.   Applicant  states
that the IG report points out that  problems  did  occur  and  as  a  direct
result his  career  and  others  were  derailed.   He  self-eliminated  from
training only to save his sanity and tried to remain in  the  Air  Force  by
cross training but was unsuccessful.  He was placed in a situation that  was
unique and made it difficult for him to operate at his full  potential.   He
asks the Board to right past wrongs and  insure  that  future  airmen  don’t
suffer from misguided and tunnel vision leaderships of 1C5XX  career  field.
Applicant’s letter is at Exhibit I.

_________________________________________________________________

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 error or injustice.

    a.  We note the applicant’s statements concerning the reasons  he  self-
eliminated from AWD training and his attempts to cross-train  to  remain  in
the Air Force.  It is significant  that  the  IG  investigation  found  unit
training deficiencies; however, we also note that the  IO  recommended  that
the applicant be given the option to reenter AWD training with his  previous
training unit or at his next  assignment.   While  we  understand  that  the
applicant  believes  his  self-elimination  and  eventual  separation   were
necessary, it appears that these actions  were  voluntary  and,  presumably,
taken by the applicant after a reasoned assessment of his circumstances  and
options in this matter and a determination that this course  of  action  was
in his own best interests at the  time.   No  evidence  has  been  presented
showing otherwise or that  he  was  misled  concerning  the  impact  of  his
requests  for  disenrollment  and  separation.   In  the  absence  of   such
evidence,  we  are  not  inclined  to  favorably  consider  the  applicant’s
requests for reinstatement in the Air  Force  and  cross-training  into  the
Recruiting Service with assignment to Phoenix AZ.   As  a  separate  matter,
should the applicant desire to return to active duty, in view  of  the  fact
that he has a reenlistment eligibility (RE) code  of  1J,  it  would  appear
that there is no impediment to his seeking  enlistment  as  a  prior-service
candidate.

    b.  Based on the above, it would further appear that the  recoupment  of
the unearned portion of his  SRB  and  travel  advance  was  proper  and  in
compliance  with  the  governing  directives,  which  implement   the   law.
Therefore, favorable consideration of his request  for  entitlement  of  his
last paycheck with no payback on his Selective  Reenlistment  Bonus  is  not
possible.

    c.  As  to  the  applicant’s  request  that  he  be  given   a   15-year
retirement, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of  the  Air  Force
office of primary  responsibility  that  since  the  TERA  program  was  not
offered at the time of the applicant’s  separation,  he  is  ineligible  for
retirement under this program.  Therefore, we have  no  basis  to  favorably
consider the applicant’s request for retirement under the provisions of  the
TERA.

_________________________________________________________________
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  AFBCMR
Docket Number 02-02131 in Executive Session  on  29  April  2004  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Jackson A. Hauslein Jr, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Member
                 Mr. James W. Russell, III, Member

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 29 Jul 03, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPAAD, dated 8 Sep 03.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPAAD2, dated 15 Sep 03.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, DFAS-POCC/DE, dated 3 Dec 03 w/atch.
     Exhibit F.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 2 Feb 04.
     Exhibit G.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRRP, dated 6 Feb 04 w/atchs.
     Exhibit H.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 Feb 04.
     Exhibit I.  Letter, Applicant, dated 29 Feb 04.





                                  JACKSON A. HAUSLEIN JR.
                                  Panel Chair