RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-01449
            INDEX CODE:  100.00
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His date of separation be changed so that he may reach sanctuary.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was twice non-selected  for  promotion  to  the  grade  of  major  and  a
mandatory date of separation (DOS)  of  31  Aug  04  was  established.   The
mandatory DOS is 3 months and 8 days short  of  him  reaching  18  years  of
service, which would place him in sanctuary and allow him to retire with  20
years of service.  Last year he received a $40,000 retention bonus.  If  not
allowed to continue  to  serve,  his  otherwise  honorable  career  will  be
terminated without receiving any retirement benefits.

In support of his request, applicant provided a personnel data brief and  an
email communiqué.  His complete submission, with attachments is  at  Exhibit
A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant served as an enlisted member from 5 Apr 83 through 23 Jan 90,  and
from 27 Sep 93 through 20 Jan 94.  He was  appointed  a  second  lieutenant,
Reserve of the Air Force on 21 Jan 94.  He  was  progressively  promoted  to
the grade of captain, having assumed that grade effective and  with  a  date
of rank of 21 Jan 98.  He was considered and not selected for  promotion  to
the grade of major for the second time by the Calendar Year  2003B  (CY03B),
Central Major Selection Board and was not selected for continuation  by  the
CY03B Captain Selective Continuation Board.  As a result,  a  mandatory  DOS
of 31 Aug 04 was established.  He  will  reach  18  years  of  total  active
military service on 8 Dec 04.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPO  recommends  denial.   DPPPO  states  a  review  of  his  Officer
Selection  Record  reveals  no  derogatory  information,  which  would  have
prevented him from selection for continuation.  Although his  commander  and
career field manager supports continuation, the Secretary of the  Air  Force
did not identify his Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) critical to  the  needs
of the Air Force for retention.  The DPPPO evaluation is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states in 2003 the Air Force deemed his AFSC  critical  enough  to
offer him a $40,000 retention bonus.  He received a $10,000  installment  in
February 2003, and the second installment in February 2004.   He  feels  his
discharge is unjust because he  is  being  discharged  even  though  he  has
honored his part of the agreement and has done everything that was  expected
of him.  Involuntary separation will result in the Air Force taking  50%  of
the annual installments he  received,  which  will  result  in  a  financial
stress for his family.

His  career  field,  Computer,  Communications,  and   Information   Systems
Management is extremely competitive,  time  consuming  to  maintain  at  the
"cutting edge," and expensive.  Since he began  receiving  the  installments
he paid for and earned certification in computer  networks  and  is  working
towards a Cisco Certified  Networks  Associate.   The  Master's  degree  was
masked in the major's board selection folders.   This  is  an  injustice  in
itself because his degree was totally ignored.  He earned  the  degree  with
the needs of the Air Force in mind, not merely to fill a square.

This type of separation is unjust because it ignores the fact  that  he  has
always performed above what is expected of him as evidenced by his award  of
the Lt General Leo Marquez Communications Award.   Other  officers  in  non-
critical career fields are offered continuation several times.  Yet  in  his
case, even though he was offered a retention bonus, he is  not  offered  the
opportunity of even a one-time continuation.

His complete response is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

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.   We  took  notice  of  the  applicant's
complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however,  we  do  not
find his contentions  sufficiently  persuasive  to  override  the  rationale
expressed by the Air Force.  While we are not without sympathy  towards  the
applicant's circumstances, we do not believe that based on his proximity  to
reaching sanctuary he has been the victim of an injustice  nor  do  we  find
evidence  that  he  was  treated   differently   from   similarly   situated
individuals.  Therefore, we agree with the  opinion  and  recommendation  of
the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale  as
the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the  victim  of
an error or injustice.  We took note of the applicant's contention that  the
recoupment of his retention bonus would create an  unjust  financial  stress
upon his family.  We considered action on that portion of  his  application;
however, inasmuch as the debt resulting from the recoupment action  has  not
yet taken place, we determined that it would be  inappropriate  to  consider
taking corrective measures until  he  is  able  to  show  an  injustice  has
actually occurred.  Once a  debt  has  been  established,  he  may  resubmit
matters to  this  Board  and  we  would  be  willing  to  reconsider  taking
corrective action.  Otherwise, 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 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 AFBCMR Docket Number  BC-2004-
01449 in Executive Session on 30 Jun 04, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:


    Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Panel Chair
      Ms. Jean A. Reynolds, Member
      Mr. Vance E. Lineberger, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 Apr 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 7 Jun 04.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Jun 04.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant, dated 15 Jun 04.




                                   BRENDA L. ROMINE
                                   Panel Chair