RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-02090
                                       INDEX CODE:  108.00
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX               COUNSEL:  NONE

                                             HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  5 January 2009

_________________________________________________________________

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 given the wrong information from the Military Personnel Flight  (MPF)
Contact Center.  He was told that he wouldn’t be forced to retrain since  he
was so high on the Non-Commissioned Officer (NCO) Vulnerability List.   This
information kept him from completing his retraining package.

In support  of  his  appeal,  the  applicant  provides  copies  of  the  NCO
Vulnerability List; electronic communications between the applicant and  the
MPF Contact Center, and his last eight Enlisted Performance Reports  (EPRs).


The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, 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 December 2002.  He has a Total  Active  Federal  Military  Service
Date of 7 January 1999 and a projected date of separation of 25 May 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  applicant
submitted an initial retraining application on 10 January 2007  under  Phase
I.  On 30 January 2007, the Air Force  Contact  Center  (AFCC)  advised  him
that there were no quotas available in his  requested  Air  Force  Specialty
Codes (AFSCs) and to resubmit the application.  The  applicant  resubmitted,
but again there were no quotas available in the AFSCs requested  or  he  did
not meet the qualification (stated on 1  February  2007,  he  did  not  have
normal color vision).  On 7 February 2007,  after  the  applicant  submitted
his third application, the AFCC advised him he met  qualifications  for  one
of his AFSC choices.  On 8 February 2007, the applicant contacted  the  AFCC
and informed them that he  did  not  wish  to  pursue  retraining  into  his
requested AFSC of 3S211.  The applicant made several  other  contacts  after
the 28 February 2007 deadline, stating he misunderstood what  he  needed  to
do and with questions about when he submitted the initial application.

DPPAE states the applicant failed to  complete  his  retraining  application
under Phase II of the program, although he was fully aware  of  the  program
requirements.  He voluntarily pulled his request  for  retraining  into  the
3S211 AFSC on 7 February 2007 and did  not  resubmit  any  further  request.
The applicant states he was told not  to  submit  an  application,  but  has
failed to provide any evidence,  by  competent  authority,  to  support  his
position.  His position on the Vulnerability  List  as  it  related  to  his
submitting the required documentation is irrelevant.  The  applicant  signed
and dated the Fiscal Year 2007 Phase II NCORP Memorandum on 9 January  2007,
which stated his responsibilities and the results if he failed to comply  as
directed.  The memorandum clearly mandated his participation.  He 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  31
August 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 6 November 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

            Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
            Mr. Gregory A. Parker, Member
            Ms. Terri G. Spoutz, Member


The following documentary evidence for AFBCMR Docket Number
BC-2007-02090 was considered:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 9 Jun 07, with atchs.
      Exhibit B.  Letter, ARPC/DPPAE, dated 23 Jul May 07, w/atchs.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 31 Aug 07.




                                  MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
                                                   Panel Chair