RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-01413
		INDEX CODE:  110.02

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED: YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her DD Form 214 be corrected to show a Reenlistment (RE) Code of a 1# rather than a 2X.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was contacted by an Air Force Recruiter regarding a possible commission in the Air Force as a physical therapist.  She has a master’s degree in physical therapy.  She decided to apply for the commission and completed all the required paperwork and a physical.  When the recruiters found out about her previous enlisted tour with the Air Force, they checked her background and found out she was discharged with an RE code of 2X, First term, second term, or career airman considered but not selected for reenlistment under the Selective Reenlistment Program (SRP).  They were also concerned about her enlisted performance reports (EPR’s).  She was consequently not selected for an appointment in the Air Force.

In support of her appeal, the applicant has provided a personal statement and a copy of her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Air Force on 15 August 1990.  She was progressively promoted to the grade of senior airman with a date of rank (DOR) of 15 December 1992.  On 20 December 1993, her supervisor initiated an AF Form 418, Selective Reenlistment Program Consideration, and non-recommended her for continued service based on her EPR’s and several letters of counseling and an inability to comply with expected standards.  A review of her EPR’s reflects that her promotion recommendation during two performance reporting periods was 2 – “Not recommended for promotion at this time” and a third EPR of 3 – “Consider.”  On 22 December 1993, her commander concurred with the non-recommendation of her supervisor and denied her reenlistment.  She acknowledged her commander’s intent and appealed her non-selection to a higher commander.  After review, the appeal authority denied her appeal stating there was nothing in the appeal that would warrant overturning the commander’s decision.  She served for four years and was discharged on 14 August 1994 after completing her first full term of service.  She was honorably discharged with an RE code of 2X.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPAE recommends denial.  DPPAE states commanders have total SRP selection or non-selection as long as the airman is eligible for consideration.  Commander’s make select or non-select decisions based on EPR’s, unfavorable information from any substantiated source, the airman’s willingness to comply with Air Force standards, and the airman’s ability, or lack thereof, to meet required training and duty performance levels.  After a review of her personnel record DPPAE states there was no error or injustice found that would support her change request.  Her commander, as the authority on recommendations for reenlistment of squadron members, recommended non-reenlistment.

DPPAE’s complete evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 24 May 2007 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.
Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

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 error or 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.  The discharge appears to be in compliance with the governing AFI and we find no evidence to indicate that her reenlistment (RE) code from the Air Force was inappropriate.  We find no evidence of error in this case and after thoroughly reviewing the documentation that has been submitted in support of applicant's appeal, we do not believe she has suffered from an injustice.  Therefore, based on the available evidence of record, we find no basis upon which to favorably consider this application.

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 issue(s) involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2007-01413 in Executive Session on 16 August 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 Apr 07, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 15 May 07, w/atch.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 May 07.