RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-02655 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reentry (RE) code of “2X” (first-term, second-term, or career airman considered but not selected for reenlistment under the [Selected Reenlistment Program] SRP) be changed to “1J” (Eligible to reenlist, but elects separation). _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His RE code is incorrect as he was allowed to reenlist in the Army National Guard. He has attempted to reenlist in the United States Navy; however, he was denied due to his current RE code. The applicant does not provide any evidence in support of his appeal. The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is a former member of the Regular Air Force who entered active duty on 8 October 1997 and was progressively promoted to the grade of staff sergeant (E-5) effective 1 September 2003. On 15 March 2007, he was released from active duty for completion of required active service and honorably discharged with an RE code of “2X” and a separation code of “LBK” (Completion of Required Active Service). The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force. Accordingly, there is no need to recite these facts in this Record of Proceedings. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial. DPSOA states the applicant has not provided any evidence of an error or injustice that would warrant a change of his RE code. The applicant was separated under the Air Force Shaping Program and was entitled to half separation pay. Although there is no Air Force Form 418, Selective Reenlistment Program Consideration, not selecting him for reenlistment, the Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS) indicates that he was ineligible for promotion based on being denied reenlistment. Based on the presumption of regularity, the commander non-selected the applicant for reenlistment considering the information listed in MilPDS. The fact he was allowed to enter the Army National Guard does not mean his RE code of “2X” is incorrect, but that his RE code must have been waived or overlooked. If the Regular Army wants to enlist the applicant, a waiver of his RE code would be more appropriate than changing his RE code to an incorrect code. The requested RE code of “1J” does not apply to the applicant as he was separated under the Force Shaping Program due to being ineligible for reenlistment. A complete copy of 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 1 October 2010, 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. 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 an 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 the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. _________________________________________________________________ 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-2010-02655 in Executive Session on 7 April 2011, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2010-02655: Exhibit A. DD Forms 149, dated 15 Jul 10. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 1 Sep 10. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Oct 10.