RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:	BC-2008-00899 INDEX CODE:	112.10
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED:	NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed from “2X” (first-term, second-term career airman considered but not selected for reenlistment under the Selective Reenlistment Program (SRP))to “3E” (second-term or career airman who refused to get retainability for training or retraining or declined to attend Professional Military Education (PME)) to enable him to join the Air Force Reserve.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He agreed to end his current enlistment with the understanding that he would receive a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for the incident and a nonrecommendation for reenlistment. He made the fact known to his chain of command that he was pursuing a position in the Air Force Reserve and received feedback that they supported this.

In support of his application, the applicant provides a personal statement and copies of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty; amendment to his separation order; Memorandum for Record; SRP consideration; Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs); Deputy Inspector General’s letter, dated 1 June 2005; and a sequence of events.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 13 March 1996, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force at the age of 19 in the grade of airman basic. He was progressively promoted to the grade of staff sergeant (E-5) effective and with a date of rank of 1 June 2001.

On 4 October 2002, the applicant received nonjudicial punishment for dereliction of duty and failure to obey an order. His punishment consisted of a reprimand and reduction to the grade of

senior airman (E-4) suspended until 3 April 2003 unless sooner vacated.

On 18 May 2005, his supervisor initiated an AF IMT 418, Selective Reenlistment Program Consideration, and nonrecommended the applicant for reenlistment. The supervisor stated the applicant had received nonjudicial punishment and two LORs as a result of technical data violations. On 18 May 2005, his commander concurred and nonselected the applicant for reenlistment. After acknowledging the commanders decision, the applicant indicated he did not intend to appeal the decision.

The applicant was honorably discharged effective 27 May 2005. He received a separation code of “KBK” (completion of required active service) and an RE code of “2X.”  He served 9 years,
2 months and 15 days on active duty.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial of the applicant’s request to change his RE code. DPSOA states Air Force Instruction 35-2602, Reenlistment in the USAF, indicates that commanders have reenlistment selection or non-selection authority. The applicant has based his request solely on the fact that his denial was strung along until the last minute and that he was then force to make a decision without the benefit of counsel. The RE code of “2X” is correct. The requested RE code of “3X” is used for those second-term airman who refused to get retainability for training or retraining or declined to attend PME. The applicant had not declined PME or refused to obtain retainability for training or retraining; therefore, the RE code “3E” does not apply. DPSOA indicates they found no evidence of error or injustice; nor did the applicant submit evidence of any.

The DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 11 April 2008, for review and comment within 30 days. 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.
1.	
2.	The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.	Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice. The applicant did not provide persuasive evidence showing the information in the discharge case file was erroneous, his substantial rights were violated, or that his commanders abused their discretionary authority. We find the RE code which was issued at the time of the applicant’s separation accurately reflects the circumstances of his separation and we do not find this code to be in error or unjust. In view of the foregoing and absent evidence to the contrary, we conclude that no basis exists upon which to recommend favorable action on the applicant’s request.

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 11 June 2008, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

Panel Chair 
Member
Member
The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2008-00899:

Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 25 Feb 08, w/atchs. Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.	Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 18 Mar 08.
Exhibit D.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Apr 08.