RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-01711 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reentry (RE) code of 2X (First-term, second term or career airman considered but not selected for reenlistment under the SRP) be changed to a code that would allow him to reenlist. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was mistreated by his chain of command and cheated out of his military career. In support of his request, the applicant provides a letter from his former commander and documents extracted from his military personnel records. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 1 June 2004. AF IMT 418, Selective Reenlistment Program Consideration, dated 29 October 2007 reflects the applicant’s supervisor non- recommended him for reenlistment and his commander denied him reenlistment eligibility. On 31 May 2008, the applicant was honorably discharged in the grade of senior airman under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, Completion of Required Active Service. He served 4 years on active duty. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial. DPSOA states the applicant’s supervisor non-recommended and his commander denied him reenlistment eligibility on 29 October 2007. The supervisor’s justification is in block II and the commanders reasons are in block III of the AF IMT 418. Specifics include 8 Memorandums for Record, 3 Letters of Counseling, and 2 Letters of Reprimand for substandard performance, significant supervisory involvement, and almost constant oversight. AFI 36-2606, Reenlistment in the USAF, states commanders have selective reenlistment selection or non-selection authority. The Selective Reenlistment Program (SRP) considers the member’s Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) ratings, Unfavorable Information from any substantiated source, the airman’s willingness to comply with Air Force standards and/or the airman’s ability (or lack of) to meet required training and duty performance levels. Although the appeal area on the back of the AF Form 418 in the applicant’s record was not completed, he stated he appealed and the appeal was denied. According to the copy of his appeal included with his DD Form 149, the wing commander disapproved his appeal. Applicant submitted several character references to include a current and old letter from his December 2004 – July 2007 commander; the letters have the same information. His old commander raves about applicant’s willingness to support or represent the squadron by volunteering and referring to him as the spirit of the squadron, but he does not comment on his duty performance. Applicant’s performance report closing out 1 March 2006 and signed by the same commander has applicant identified as “Consider” versus “Ready” or “Immediate Promotion.” Additionally, the front of the report has the applicant marked one block above failing or unacceptable for 5 out of 7 ratings. Although these are acceptable ratings, they are not indicative of members who normally garner such praise as in the character statement to include the words dedicated and committed. The DPSOA complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 9 July 2010, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). 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. 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. After a thorough review of the evidence of record, it is our opinion that given the circumstances surrounding his separation from the Air Force, the RE code assigned was proper and in compliance with the appropriate instructions. In addition, the applicant has not provided any evidence which would lead us to believe that a change to his RE code to allow him to reenlist is warranted. Therefore, we agree with 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. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in 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 issues involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2010-01711 in Executive Session on 10 November 2010, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2010-01711 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 30 April 2010, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Record. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 24 June 2010. Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 9 July 2010.