RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02144 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reentry (RE) code of “2C” (Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service) be changed to an RE code of “1M” “1P” or “1Q” (all: Eligible to Reenlist) to allow him to reenter the military. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was discharged for manning issues, nothing criminal. His career shouldn’t have to suffer due to conditions at his former squadron. In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is a former member of the Regular Air Force who entered active duty on 14 March 2006. He was trained in the Aircraft Loadmaster career field and was progressively promoted to the grade of senior airman (E-4) effective 14 July 2008. The applicant’s Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) for the period 14 November 2007 through 13 November 2008 indicates in Block 2 of the performance assessment that the applicant did not meet standards, conduct, character & military bearing. The rater annotated the applicant “Lacked proper judgment; rec’d 3 LOR’s for missing mandatory appointments/failure to show for assigned duties.” On 1 April 2009, the applicant was notified of his commander’s intent to recommend he be discharged for insufficient retainability for required training under the authority of Air Force Personnel Directive (AFPD) 36-32 and Air Force Instruction 36-3208, paragraph 5.10. The commander indicated that the reason for his action was that on or about 31 March 2008, the applicant failed to maintain medical certification, as indicated by Aeronautical Order Aviation Service, dated 1 April 2008. In addition, on or about 30 October 2008, the applicant was notified that “the Air Force Retraining OPR determined there are no retraining quotas available for disqualified Airmen” in an AFPC AFCC Disqual BPO Message, dated 3 October 2008. After consulting counsel, the applicant waived his right to submit statements in his own behalf. On 21 April 2009, a legal review found the case to be legally sufficient; the discharge authority approved the recommended discharge and directed the applicant be discharged with an honorable characterization of service without probation or rehabilitation. On 29 April 2009, the applicant was discharged with an honorable character of service with a narrative reason for separation of “Insufficient Retainability (Economic Reason),” and an RE code of “2C.” He served 3 years, 1 month, and 16 days on active duty. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial. DPSOA states the applicant’s RE code of “2C” is required per Air Force Instruction 36-2606, Reenlistments in the USAF, Chapter 5, based on his involuntary discharge with an honorable characterization of service. The applicant has not proven there was an error or injustice in reference to his RE code. The RE code is not affected by his narrative reason for separation, which is what the applicant points to in support of his appeal. The complete 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 29 July 2011, 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 timely filed. 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. 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 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-2011-02144 in Executive Session on 14 February 2012, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2011-02144: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 7 May 11, w/atch. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 20 Jul 11. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Jul 11.