RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-02544
            INDEX CODE:  110.02
            COUNSEL:  XXXXXX
            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her reenlistment (RE) code of 3E (second-term or career airman  who  refused
to get retainability for  training  or  retraining  or  declined  to  attend
Professional  Military  Education  (PME))  be  corrected  to  allow  her  to
reenlist and test for promotion.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Her current Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) and rank  made  her  subject  to
the Air Force Noncommissioned Officer Retraining Program (NCORP).   She  was
correctly notified during Phase I of  the  program  and  complied  with  its
requirements.  She was then subject to Phase II of  the  program.   However,
the Air Force failed to notify her of her selection under Phase  II  of  the
program until  months  after  the  deadline  for  her  to  comply  with  its
requirements.

Despite the fact that the Air Force is aware  that  it  failed  to  properly
notify her in accordance with  the  program,  her  reenlistment  status  was
changed  to  prevent  her  from  reenlisting  (or  testing  for  promotion).
Although she made every effort through her military personnel  flight  (MPF)
and her chain of command, she was directed to take her case to the AFBCMR.

In support of her request, the applicant provided a  copy  of  a  Letter  of
Appeal to AU/CC, dated 26 Jun 07 with attachments, and AU/CC’s  response  to
the Letter of Appeal, dated 26 Jul 07, with attachments.

The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on active duty with the Air Force in  the
grade of technical sergeant.  Her  total  active  federal  military  service
date is 8 Feb 95.

On 27 Jul 06, the applicant was notified she was  a  candidate  under  NCORP
Phase I (voluntary) which started 26 Jul 06 and terminated 18 Sep  06.   The
notification advised candidates that if voluntary targets were  not  met  in
certain AFSC’s, Phase II (involuntary) would be implemented.

NCORP Phase II was implemented on 3 Jan 07 and terminated on    31  Mar  07.
All NCOs identified as vulnerable were given until  15 Jan 07 to  submit  an
initial request, followed by a suspense of 28 Feb 07 to submit  a  completed
application.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPAE recommends denial of the applicant’s request.  As stated  by  the
applicant’s legal counsel, the applicant was aware of the NCORP Phase I  and
chose not to apply during the voluntary phase  because  the  career  choices
available were not in her best interest. Therefore, she elected  to  take  a
wait and see approach and wait for Phase II.  Contrary  to  the  applicant’s
position that she did not get  notification  from  the  CSS  or  other  base
officials, she actually received no less than two notifications.  On  8  Jan
07, the applicant’s Superintendent forwarded an e-mail, subject:  “FY07  NCO
Retraining Program (NCORP) Phase II  Implementation”  to  all  CCAF/Enlisted
personnel.  In the e-mail, the applicant was  urged  to  take  action.   The
applicant  disregarded  the  e-mail  from  her  Superintendent.   The  NCORP
memorandum, dated Thursday, 27 Jul 07, was sent by the  MPF,  was  received,
and was disregarded  by  the  applicant.   The  applicant’s  own  supporting
documentation states she received the NCORP  program  memorandum.   As  such
there is no  error  or  injustice.   The  applicant  failed  to  submit  her
application in accordance with program guidance; therefore, the 3E  RE  code
is correct.

The complete AFPC/DPPAE evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant’s counsel states the DPPAE response  added  nothing  of  value
and DPPAE elected not to address the  Air  Force’s  uncontested  failure  to
properly notify  TSgt  Hall  in  accordance  with  Phase  II  of  the  NCORP
guidance.  Additionally, DPPAE provided the Board with an erroneous  summary
of the applicant’s position regarding this action.

The issue is not whether or not the applicant received “notice,” or  whether
or not she should have exercised her regulatory options.  It is  whether  or
not the applicant received “notice” as defined in Phase II of  the  program.
The evidence is clear she did not.  The NCORP  guidance  reads  in  relevant
parts…”CSS are charged to  notify  each  individual  identified  under  FY07
NCORP Phase II… Commander’s Support Staff  (CSSs)  must  personally  counsel
each individual identified,” prior to the  individual’s  responsibility  for
action in accordance with  NCORP  guidance.   This  guidance  is  clear  and
unequivocal; the Air Force failed to comply with said guidance.

The unit CSS did not notify the applicant of  her  enrollment  in  Phase  II
until long after the deadline for her to comply.  This fact is supported  by
her commander’s memorandum to DPPAE, and is acknowledged by  DPPAE  in  it’s
response to the Board.  The CSS could not advise the applicant because  they
never received the guidance that she needed to be  notified,  prior  to  the
applicant’s deadline to respond.

DPPAE’s position is that the  applicant’s  time  in  service,  knowledge  of
NCORP, and a group e-mail  from  her  unit’s  CCC,  combined  to  constitute
personal counseling from a CSS.  This argument is without merit on at  least
two fronts.  First, it does not comply with NCORP directives.  Second,  even
if one were to consider this as a permissible alternative notification,  the
CCC’s group e-mail failed to comply with  NCORP  guidance,  provided  by  HQ
AFPC/DPSOOC.

Despite its attempts to the contrary, the Air Force  cannot  be  allowed  to
repeatedly ignore its own directives, and then advise this  Board  that  the
applicant, not the Air Force, had a duty to comply with the mandates of  the
program.  Such a result allows the Air Force to hold an  airman  responsible
under a theory of lack  of  due  diligence,  while  waiving  its  own  gross
negligence.

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINED THAT:

1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies  provided  by  existing  law  or
regulations.

2. The application was timely filed.

3. Sufficient relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of error or injustice.  In this respect,  we  note  the  applicant
was selected for involuntary retraining under  the  Noncommissioned  Officer
Retraining  Program  (NCORP)  and   was   required   to   submit   necessary
documentation to determine  her  qualification/suitability  for  involuntary
retraining to AFPC  by  28  Feb  07,  or  be  determined  to  have  declined
retraining  and  face  mandatory  separation.   Although  DPPAE  states  the
applicant was notified on  two  occasions,  we  are  persuaded  that  proper
notification procedures were not followed and that  the  applicant  was  not
properly notified.  Accordingly, it is our opinion that her  records  should
be corrected as indicated below.

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 issues involved.   Therefore,  the  request  for  a
hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air  Force  relating
to the APPLICANT be corrected to show that  on           28  February  2007,
her reenlistment eligibility (RE) code was 1M.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number  BC-2007-
02544 in Executive Session on 27 February 2008, under the provisions of  AFI
36-2603:

         Mr. Michael A. Gallogly, Chair
     Mr. Gregory A. Parker, Member
     Ms. Teri G. Spoutz, Member

All members voted to correct the records,  as  recommended.   The  following
documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 8 Aug 07.
     Exhibit B.  AFPC/DPPAE Memorandum, w/atchs, dated 21 Aug 07.
     Exhibit C.  SAF/MRBR Letter, dated 19 Oct 07.
     Exhibit D.  Applicant’s Rebuttal, dated 29 Oct 07.



                       MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
                       Panel Chair


     AFBCMR BC-2007-02544








     MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF


      Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force
     Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of
     Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is
     directed that:


      The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
     relating to xxxxxx, be corrected to show that on 28 February 2007, her
     reenlistment eligibility  (RE) code was 1M.






            JOE G. LINEBERGER
            Director
            Air Force Review Boards Agency