RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-05966 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code on his NGB Form 22, Report of Separation and Record of Service, be changed from “6U” (Air National Guard (ANG) Not Selected for Retention by the Commander) to “6A” (ANG Eligible to Reenlist/Extend – Selected by Commander). ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 1. His commander advised him that he was not recommending him for reenlistment. He believes the commander’s decision was made out of anger rather than rational thought. He served honorably for 6 years and wanted to serve even longer. 2. He met with several recruiters who have given him different responses about reenlisting. To no avail, he appealed to the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) to see what could be done to change his records. In support of his request, the applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 293, Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States, a copy of his NGB Form 22, copies of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Re4lease or Discharge from Active Duty, a memorandum from the 126 MPF/DPFS, email communications, a letter from the DVA, and letters of support. His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ _ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant enlisted into the Air National Guard on 11 Mar 03. He received a “6U” RE code and an honorable discharge after serving 6 years. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force, which is at Exhibit C and D. ________________________________________________________________ _ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: NGB/A1PO recommends denial. The applicant’s “6U” RE code indicates he was not selected for retention by his commander. In accordance with the governing instructions, “no individual will reenlist or extend their enlistment without the concurrence of the unit commander. A commander may approve or deny reenlistments and extension of enlistments to any member of his or her command. Continued retention in the ANG is a command prerogative and is not an inherent right of any individual unless the member has between 18 and 20 years of satisfactory service towards a reserve retirement.” Therefore, A1PO cannot overturn the commander’s decision not to retain the applicant as there is no proof of an injustice or prejudice. They recommend the applicant request an exception to policy with an Air Force Reserve recruiter. The complete A1PO evaluation is at Exhibit C. NGB/A1P concurs with the A1PO recommendation to deny the applicant’s request based on the governing directives and the lack of documentation provided in this request. The complete A1P evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 8 Feb 13 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 injustice. The applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we are not persuaded that the applicant has been the victim of an error or injustice. At the time members are separated from the Air Force, they are furnished an RE code predicated upon the quality of their service and circumstances of their separation. After a thorough review of the evidence of record, we believe the RE code issued was in accordance with governing instructions. However, we advise the applicant to pursue the NGB/A1PO recommended avenue with an Air Force Reserve recruiter. 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-2012-05966 in Executive Session on 24 Sep 13, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 4 Dec 12, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, NGB/A1PO, dated 28 Jan 13. Exhibit D. Letter, NGB/A1P, dated 31 Jan 13. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Feb 13. Panel Chair