Fat controllers reported a near midair collision due to incorrect strip marking.

Attributes
ACN	1546211
Time
Date	201805
Local Time Of Day	1201-1800
Place
Locale Reference	FAT.Tower
State Reference	CA
Aircraft 1
Make Model Name	Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Flight Phase	Initial Climb
Route In Use	Vectors
Flight Plan	VFR
Aircraft 2
Make Model Name	Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	Initial Climb
Route In Use	Vectors
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Function	Local Ground
Qualification	Air Traffic Control Developmental
Person 2
Function	Flight Data / Clearance Delivery
Qualification	Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Events
Anomaly	ATC Issue All Types Conflict NMAC Deviation - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Miss Distance	Vertical 300

Narrative:

I was working local control and ground control was in training. Aircraft X was holding short of 29L; and I had a strip showing his destination as mpa (madera practice area). Aircraft Y was holding short of 29R with a crash fire rescue equipment time in about 1.5 minutes. I cleared aircraft X for takeoff on 29L; gave him a 20 degree turn to the left; and advised him of the crj that would be departing the parallel runway flying runway heading. Mpa is also runway heading; so when aircraft X was about 1 to 2 miles south of the departure corridor; I gave him on course and shipped him to departure.I cleared aircraft Y for takeoff on 29R. When they started to rotate is when I noticed aircraft X had turned right heading directly north into the path of aircraft Y. I gave a traffic call to aircraft Y; but did not give him any control instructions. Aircraft Y advised me they had to level off in order to avoid the skyhawk.while I was given bad coordination in the destination on aircraft X's strip; I feel I should have held onto aircraft X and confirmed his on course heading before shipping him to departure. Furthermore; I should have given aircraft Y a safety alert and control instruction in order to avoid a loss of separation. Overall; I don't know of any procedure changes that could be made other than a more distinct designation of practice areas to avoid confusion.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FAT Controllers reported a NMAC due to incorrect strip marking.

Narrative: I was working Local Control and Ground Control was in training. Aircraft X was holding short of 29L; and I had a strip showing his destination as MPA (Madera Practice Area). Aircraft Y was holding short of 29R with a CFR time in about 1.5 minutes. I cleared Aircraft X for takeoff on 29L; gave him a 20 degree turn to the left; and advised him of the CRJ that would be departing the parallel runway flying runway heading. MPA is also runway heading; so when Aircraft X was about 1 to 2 miles south of the departure corridor; I gave him on course and shipped him to Departure.I cleared Aircraft Y for takeoff on 29R. When they started to rotate is when I noticed Aircraft X had turned right heading directly north into the path of Aircraft Y. I gave a traffic call to Aircraft Y; but did not give him any control instructions. Aircraft Y advised me they had to level off in order to avoid the Skyhawk.While I was given bad coordination in the destination on Aircraft X's strip; I feel I should have held onto Aircraft X and confirmed his on course heading before shipping him to Departure. Furthermore; I should have given Aircraft Y a safety alert and control instruction in order to avoid a loss of separation. Overall; I don't know of any procedure changes that could be made other than a more distinct designation of practice areas to avoid confusion.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.