RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-01296
                                       INDEX CODE:  108.00
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX                COUNSEL:  NONE

                                             HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  27 October 2008

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code “3E” (second-term  or  career  airman
who refused to get retainability for training or retraining or  declined  to
attend PME), be removed from his records.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was approved for  early  separation  on  12  September  2006.   He  later
requested to withdraw his request for  early  separation  due  to  financial
hardship which was approved on  10  April  2007.   He  did  not  complete  a
retraining package because he was slated  to  separate  on  1  August  2007;
therefore, he never declined training.

The applicant provides no evidence to support his appeal.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

According to the military personnel data system, the applicant is  currently
serving on active duty in the grade of staff sergeant (E-5) with a  date  of
rank of 1 July 2004.  He has a Total Active Federal  Military  Service  Date
of 6 October 1999 and a projected date of separation of 22 October 2009.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this case are  presented  in  the
Air Force Evaluation.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ARPC/DPPAE recommends the applicant’s request be denied.  DPPAE  states  the
Non-commissioned Officer Retraining Program (NCORP) is a multi-purpose,  two
phase program designed to rebalance the enlisted force by moving  NCOs  from
career fields with overages to those skills experiencing shortages;  and  to
provide NCOs with a  voice  in  their  career  development.  The  Air  Staff
targeted 130 staff sergeants in the applicant’s  Air  Force  Specialty  Code
(AFSC) for retraining-out under the NCORP and the applicant was  76  of  228
staff sergeants identified as vulnerable for involuntary retraining.  On  30
August 2006, the  applicant  submitted  an  initial  retraining  application
under Phase I.  On 6 September 2006, the Air  Force  Contact  Center  (AFCC)
informed him of his eligibility for  the  requested  AFSC(s).   However,  on
8 August 2006, the applicant requested  miscellaneous  discharge  which  was
subsequently approved  on  12  September  2006.   On  2 February  2007,  the
applicant’s request for retraining was closed  due  to  inactivity.   On  15
February  2007,  the  applicant  contacted  the  AFCC  inquiring  about  his
withdrawal  .   He  wanted  separation  versus  retraining,  but  when   his
Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) recoupment was more  than  he  wanted  to
pay, he changed his mind.  On 13 March 2007,  the  applicant  requested  his
discharge be withdrawn citing the recoupment amount as the  primary  reason.
His request was approved on 10 April 2007.

It is DPPAE’s  opinion  that  the  applicant  attempted  to  manipulate  the
system, but his failure to submit a completed retraining application by  the
28 February 2007 deadline was because he voluntarily withdrew  his  approved
separation;  however,  he  remained  vulnerable  as  stated  in  the   NCORP
implementation message.  The applicant was fully aware of the NCORP and  his
requirements as demonstrated by his initial application.   In  addition,  he
was  aware  that  he  remained  vulnerable  and  the  ramifications  of  not
complying with the NCORP requirements.  The applicant’s actions resulted  in
another  NCO  further  down  the  list  being  involuntarily  selected   for
retraining because someone took his place.

DPPAE states the applicant failed to comply with NCORP requirements and,  as
such, the RE code of 3E is correct.  The applicant has failed  to  prove  an
error or injustice exists.  To permit  removal  of  his  RE  code  seriously
undermines the program and most of all, is unjust to  those  that  complied.
The applicant is one of approximately three  hundred  NCOs  that  failed  to
take responsibility as members of the profession of arms  and  moreover,  as
noncommissioned officers in the Air Force.

The DPPAE evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 3  July
2007, for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit C).  As of  this  date,
this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

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 an error or an 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  office  of  primary
responsibility and adopt its 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 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 21 August 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

            Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Panel Chair
            Mr. Gregory A. Parker, Member
            Mr. Steven A. Cantrell, Member


The following documentary evidence for AFBCMR Docket Number
BC-2007-01296 was considered:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 23 Apr 07.
      Exhibit B.  Letter, ARPC/DPPAE, dated 18 May 07, w/atchs.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Jul 07.




                                  LAURENCE M. GRONER
                                                   Panel Chair