RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-04378 COUNSEL: 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 Selective Re-enlistment Program (SRP)) be changed. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He would like to reenter the military as an officer. The board should consider his overall “Above Average” rating on his last Enlisted Performance Report (EPR). The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant’s military personnel records indicate he enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 7 Aug 07. On 9 Feb 11, the applicant’s supervisor non-recommended him for reenlistment and, on the same day, the applicant’s commander non-selected him for reenlistment. In doing so, the commander indicated the applicant was unable to adapt to the standards and responsibilities of an Airman in the U.S. Air Force, noting that he had consistently demonstrated poor judgment over the course of his enlistment as evidenced by his being disciplined for assault and making physical threats to another member on a chat log, for which he received two Letters of Reprimand, respectively. He was also the subject of a Commander Directed Investigation (CDI) for a substantiated racial slur and anti- Semitic statement. On 14 Feb 11, the applicant appealed the commander’s decision; however, his appeal was denied on 31 Mar 11. On 31 May 11, the applicant was furnished an honorable discharge and was credited with 3 years, 9 months, and 24 days of total active service. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) which is attached at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial, indicating the applicant has not provided any proof of an error or injustice in reference to his RE code. His non-selection for re-enlistment was carried out in accordance with AFI 36-2606, Reenlistment in the USAF, which indicates that commanders have selective reenlistment or non- selection authority. The applicant was discharged under the FY11 Air Force Shaping Rollback Program. The applicant was in his reenlistment window but was denied reenlistment, which required him to separate under the rollback guidance. While the applicant highlights the fact that his last EPR rating was “Above Average,” such a rating is not indicative of the absence of disciplinary issues during the rating period, nor does it give immunity to other administrative actions as evidenced by the fact that his previous EPR, which was a referral EPR, had an identical rating. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Counsel’s argues there is no evidence of misconduct in the applicant’s Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). Therefore, the command’s decision to bar the applicant from reenlistment is chronologically dishonest. He argues that the applicant’s command used derogatory information from prior to 6 May 10 as a basis to deny his reenlistment. Counsel also disagrees with the AFPC/DPSOA conclusion and does not understand the statement in the second paragraph that reads “However, none of these ratings means you didn’t get in trouble during that period or give you immunity to other administrative action.” Lastly, there was no reference to the additional matters submitted by the applicant for consideration in the advisory opinion. Therefore, the additional matters were resubmitted as attachments to the rebuttal for consideration. Counsel reiterates that the EPRs are not the issue, but it is the command’s need to rely upon derogatory information from months prior to justify actions not supported by the more recent evidence. ________________________________________________________________ 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 injustice. We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission, including his rebuttal response, in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. While Counsel argues the command’s use of derogatory information from prior to 6 May 10 as a basis for denying the applicant’s reenlistment was “chronologically dishonest,” we do not find this argument sufficient to convince us the applicant is the victim of an error or injustice. In this respect, we note the comments of the Air Force OPR indicating that according to AFI 36-2606, commanders may consider unfavorable information from any substantiated source when making a determination for reenlistment. Furthermore, while Counsel also argues the advisory opinion rendered in this case is not responsive to the additional information provided by the applicant in support of his request, we have thoroughly reviewed the applicant’s complete submission, to include the provided character statements, and do not find Counsel’s arguments or the documentation presented sufficient for us to substitute our judgment for that of the applicant’s commander. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence the commander abused his discretionary authority, the applicant’s discharge was disproportionate to the circumstances, or the applicant was denied right to which he was entitled, 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 denied. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material 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-2012-04378 in Executive Session on 23 May 13, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 17 Sep 12, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 31 Oct 12. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Nov 12. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant’s Counsel, dated 29 Nov 12, w/atchs.