EX-99.77B ACCT LTTR

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Shareholders and Board of Directors of
AllianceBernstein Bond Fund, Inc.

In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements of
AllianceBernstein Bond Fund, Inc. (comprising, respectively, the
Corporate Bond and U.S. Government Portfolios) (the Fund) as of
and for the year ended September 30, 2006, in accordance with the
standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board
(United States), we considered its internal control over financial
reporting, including control activities for safeguarding securities,
as a basis for designing our auditing procedures for the purpose of
expressing our opinion on the financial statements and to comply with
the requirements of Form N-SAR, but not for the purpose of expressing
an opinion on the effectiveness of the Funds internal control over
financial reporting.  Accordingly, we express no such opinion.

The management of the Fund is responsible for establishing and
maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting.
In fulfilling this responsibility, estimates and judgments by
management are required to assess the expected benefits and related
costs of controls. A companys internal control over financial reporting
is a process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the
reliability of financial reporting and  the preparation of financial
statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles. Such internal control includes policies and
procedures that provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or
timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use or disposition of a
companys assets that could have a material effect on the financial
statements.

Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial
reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Also, projections
of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the
risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions,
or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may
deteriorate.

A control deficiency exists when the design or operation of a control does
not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their
assigned functions, to prevent or detect misstatements on a timely basis.
A significant deficiency is a control deficiency, or combination of control
deficiencies, that adversely affects the companys ability to initiate,
authorize, record, process or report external financial data reliably in
accordance with generally accepted accounting principles such that there is
more than a remote likelihood that a misstatement of the companys annual or
interim financial statements that is more than inconsequential will not be
prevented or detected. A material weakness is a significant deficiency, or
combination of significant deficiencies, that results in more than a remote
likelihood that a material misstatement of the annual or interim financial
statements will not be prevented or detected.

Our consideration of the Funds internal control over financial reporting was
for the limited purpose described in the first paragraph and would not
necessarily disclose all deficiencies in internal control that might be
significant deficiencies or material weaknesses under standards established
by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). However,
we noted no deficiencies in the Funds internal control over financial
reporting and its operation, including controls for safeguarding securities,
that we consider to be a material weakness as defined above as of
September 30, 2006.

This report is intended solely for the information and use of management and
the Board of Directors of AllianceBernstein Bond Fund, Inc. and the
Securities and Exchange Commission and is not intended to be and should not
be used by anyone other than these specified parties.


							Ernst & Young LLP

New York, New York
November 17, 2006

EX-99.77E LEGAL

AllianceBernstein Bond.
September-06

Exhibit 77E

Legal Proceedings
As has been previously reported, the staff of the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) and the Office of New York Attorney General (NYAG)
have been investigating practices in the mutual fund industry
identified as market timing and late trading of mutual fund shares.
Certain other regulatory authorities have also been conducting
investigations into these practices within the industry and have
requested that the Adviser provide information to them.
The Adviser has been cooperating and will continue to cooperate with
all of these authorities.

On December 18, 2003, the Adviser confirmed that it had reached terms
with the SEC and the NYAG for the resolution of regulatory claims
relating to the practice of market timing mutual fund shares in some
of the AllianceBernstein Mutual Funds. The agreement with the SEC is
reflected in an Order of the Commission (SEC Order). The agreement
with the NYAG is memorialized in an Assurance of Discontinuance dated
September 1, 2004 (NYAG Order). Among the key provisions of these
agreements are the following:

(i) The Adviser agreed to establish a $250 million fund (the
Reimbursement Fund) to compensate mutual fund shareholders for the
adverse effects of market timing attributable to market timing
relationships described in the SEC Order. According to the SEC Order,
the Reimbursement Fund is to be paid, in order of priority, to fund
investors based on (i) their aliquot share of losses suffered by the
fund due to market timing, and (ii) a proportionate share of advisory
fees paid by such fund during the period of such market timing;

(ii) The Adviser agreed to reduce the advisory fees it receives from
some of the AllianceBernstein long-term, open-end retail funds until
December 31, 2008; and

(iii) The Adviser agreed to implement changes to its governance and
compliance procedures. Additionally, the SEC Order and the NYAG Order
contemplate that the Advisers registered investment company clients,
including the Fund, will introduce governance and compliance changes.

In anticipation of final, definitive documentation of the NYAG Order
and effective January 1, 2004, the Adviser began waiving a portion of
its advisory fee. On September 7, 2004, the Funds investment
advisory agreement was amended to reflect the reduced advisory fee at
the annual rate for AllianceBernstein Bond Fund  U.S. Government
Portfolio at .45% of the first $2.5 billion, .40% of the next $2.5
billion  and .35% in excess of $5 billion, AllianceBernstein Bond
Fund Corporate Bond Portfolio  at the annual rate of .50% of the
first $2.5 billion, .45% of the next $2.5 billion and .40% in excess
of $5 billion, of the average daily net assets of each Portfolio.

A special committee of the Advisers Board of Directors, comprised of
the members of the Advisers Audit Committee and the other independent
member of the Advisers Board, directed and oversaw an internal
investigation and a comprehensive review of the facts and
circumstances relevant to the SECs and the NYAGs investigations.

In addition, the Independent Directors of the Fund
(the Independent Directors) have conducted an investigation of the
above-mentioned matters with the advice of an independent economic
consultant and independent counsel.


On October 2, 2003, a purported class action complaint entitled Hindo,
et al. v. AllianceBernstein Growth & Income Fund, et al.
(Hindo Complaint) was filed against the Adviser, Alliance Capital
Management Holding L.P. (Alliance Holding), Alliance Capital
Management Corporation, AXA Financial, Inc., the AllianceBernstein
Funds, certain officers of the Adviser (Alliance defendants),

and certain other defendants not affiliated with the Adviser, as well
as unnamed Doe defendants. The Hindo Complaint was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York by
alleged shareholders of two of the AllianceBernstein Funds. The Hindo
Complaint alleges that certain of the Alliance defendants failed to
disclose that they improperly allowed certain hedge funds and other
unidentified parties to engage in late trading and market timing of
AllianceBernstein Fund securities, violating Sections 11 and 15 of
the Securities Act, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and
Sections 206 and 215 of the Advisers Act. Plaintiffs seek an
unspecified amount of compensatory damages and rescission of their
contracts with the Adviser, including recovery of all fees paid to
the Adviser pursuant to such contracts.

Since October 2, 2003, 43 additional lawsuits making factual
allegations generally similar to those in the Hindo Complaint were
filed in various federal and state courts against the Adviser and
certain other defendants. The plaintiffs in such lawsuits have
asserted a variety of theories for recovery including, but not limited
to, violations of the Securities Act, the Exchange Act, the Advisers
Act, the Investment Company Act, the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA), certain state securities
laws and common law.  All state court actions against the Adviser
either were voluntarily dismissed or removed to federal court.
On February 20, 2004, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
transferred all actions to the United States District Court for the
District of Maryland (the Mutual Fund MDL).

On September 29, 2004, plaintiffs filed consolidated amended complaints
with respect to four claim types: mutual fund shareholder claims;
mutual fund derivative claims; derivative claims brought on behalf of
Alliance Holding; and claims brought under ERISA by participants in
the Profit Sharing Plan for Employees of the Adviser. All four
complaints include substantially identical factual allegations,
which appear to be based in large part on the SEC Order and the
NYAG Order.

On April 21, 2006, the Adviser and attorneys for the plaintiffs in the
mutual fund shareholder claims, mutual fund derivative claims, and
ERISA claims entered into a confidential memorandum of understanding
(MOU) containing their agreement to settle these claims. The
agreement will be documented by a stipulation of settlement and will
be submitted for court approval at a later date. The derivative
claims brought on behalf of Alliance Holding remain pending.

On February 10, 2004, the Adviser received (i) a subpoena duces tecum
from the Office of the Attorney General of the State of West Virginia
and (ii) a request for information from West Virginias Office of the
State Auditor, Securities Commission (the West Virginia Securities
Commissioner) (together, the Information Requests). Both Information
Requests require the Adviser to produce documents concerning, among
other things, any market timing or late trading in the Advisers
sponsored mutual funds. The Adviser responded to the Information
Requests and has been cooperating fully with the investigation.

On April 11, 2005, a complaint entitled The Attorney General of the
State of West Virginia v. AIM Advisors, Inc., et al. (WVAG Complaint)
was filed against the Adviser, Alliance Holding, and various other
defendants not affiliated with the Adviser. The WVAG Complaint was
filed in the Circuit Court of Marshall County, West Virginia by the
Attorney General of the State of West Virginia. The WVAG Complaint
makes factual allegations generally similar to those in the Hindo
Complaint. On October 19, 2005, the WVAG Complaint was transferred to
the Mutual Fund MDL.

On August 30, 2005, the deputy commissioner of securities of the West
Virginia Securities Commissioner signed a Summary Order to Cease and
Desist, and Notice of Right to Hearing addressed to the Adviser and
Alliance Holding. The Summary Order claims that the Adviser and
Alliance Holding violated the West Virginia Uniform Securities Act,
and makes factual allegations generally similar to those in the
Commission Order and the NYAG Order. On January 26, 2006, the Adviser,
Alliance Holding, and various unaffiliated defendants filed a Petition
for Writ of Prohibition and Order Suspending Proceedings in West
Virginia state court seeking to vacate the Summary Order and for other
relief. The court denied the writ and in September 2006 the
Supreme Court of Appeals declined the defendants petition for appeal.
On September 22, 2006, Alliance and Alliance Holding filed an answer
and motion to dismiss the Summary Order with the Securities
Commissioner.

On June 22, 2004, a purported class action complaint entitled Aucoin,
et al. v. Alliance Capital Management L.P., et al. (Aucoin Complain)
was filed against the Adviser, Alliance Holding , Alliance Capital
Management Corporation, AXA Financial, Inc., AllianceBernstein
Investment Research & Management, Inc., certain current and former
directors of the AllianceBernstein Mutual Funds, and unnamed Doe
defendants. The Aucoin Complaint names certain of the
AllianceBernstein mutual funds as nominal defendants. The Aucoin
Complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York by alleged shareholders of an
AllianceBernstein mutual fund. The Aucoin Complaint alleges, among
other things, (i) that certain of the defendants improperly
authorized the payment of excessive commissions and other fees from
fund assets to broker-dealers in exchange for preferential marketing
services, (ii) that certain of the defendants misrepresented and
omitted from registration statements and other reports material facts
concerning such payments, and (iii) that certain defendants caused
such conduct as control persons of other defendants. The Aucoin
Complaint asserts claims for violation of Sections 34(b), 36(b) and
48(a) of the Investment Company Act, Sections 206 and 215 of the
Advisers Act, breach of common law fiduciary duties, and aiding and
abetting breaches of common law fiduciary duties. Plaintiffs seek an
unspecified amount of compensatory damages and punitive damages,
rescission of their contracts with the Adviser, including recovery of
all fees paid to the Adviser pursuant to such contracts, an
accounting of all fundrelated fees, commissions and soft dollar
payments, and restitution of all unlawfully or discriminatorily
obtained fees and expenses.

Since June 22, 2004, nine additional lawsuits making factual
allegations substantially similar to those in the Aucoin Complaint
were filed against the Adviser and certain other defendants. All nine
of the lawsuits (i) were brought as class actions filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
(ii) assert claims substantially identical to the Aucoin Complaint,
and (iii) are brought on behalf of shareholders of the Funds.
On February 2, 2005, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class
action complaint (Aucoin Consolidated Amended Complaint) that asserts
claims substantially similar to the Aucoin Complaint and the nine
additional lawsuits referenced above. On October 19, 2005, the
District Court dismissed each of the claims set forth in the Aucoin
Consolidated Amended Complaint, except for plaintiffs claim under
Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act. On January 11, 2006,
the District Court granted defendants motion for reconsideration and
dismissed the remaining Section 36(b) claim. On May 31, 2006 the
District Court denied plaintiffs motion for leave to file an amended
complaint. On July 5, 2006, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal.
On October 4, 2006 the appeal was withdrawn by stipulation, with
plaintiffs reserving the right to reinstate it at a later date.

It is possible that these matters and/or other developments resulting
from these matters could result in increased redemptions of the
AllianceBernstein Mutual Funds shares or other adverse consequences
to the AllianceBernstein Mutual Funds. This may require the
AllianceBernstein Mutual Funds to sell investments held by those funds
to provide for sufficient liquidity and could also have an adverse
effect on the investment performance of the AllianceBernstein Mutual
Funds. However, the Adviser believes that these matters are not likely
to have a material adverse effect on its ability to perform advisory
services relating to the AllianceBernstein Mutual Funds.