RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-01348
		COUNSEL:  NONE
	XXXXXXX	HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Reentry (RE) code of 2X, which denotes "1st term, 2nd term or career airman considered but not selected for reenlistment under 
the Selective Reenlistment Program (SRP)," be changed to 1XY [sic] to allow his reentry into the military.
________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He has matured since his separation and wants to be an example for his son.  He comes from a military family will always have the desire to serve. 

The applicant provides no documents in support of his request.

His complete submission is at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 12 Jan 2010, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force.

On 16 Feb 2011, the applicant was notified by his commander that he was not recommending him for reenlistment in the Air Force due to numerous negative 
quality force indicators.

On 17 Feb 2011, the applicant acknowledged receipt of his non-selection for reenlistment and stated he intended to appeal this decision.

On 1 Apr 2011, the appeal authority concurred with the commander’s recommendation to deny the applicant’s reenlistment.

On 4 Apr 2011, the applicant acknowledged receipt.

On 31 May 2011, the applicant was honorably discharged.  His narrative reason for separation was “Completion of Required Active Service.”
________________________________________________________________


THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial.  DPSOA states that in accordance with AFI 36-2606, Reenlistment in the United States Air Force, commanders have selective 
reenlistment selection or non-selection authority.  The SRP considers the member’s Enlisted Performance Report 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.

The applicant was discharged under the Fiscal Year 2011 AF Force 
Shaping Rollback Program after serving 1 year, 4 months, and 
19 days of service.  He was identified as eligible for the 
rollback based on a pattern of misconduct in the form of two 
Memorandums for Record, an Article 15, and two Letters of 
Reprimand within an 8-month period.  His commander made a 
conscious decision to separate him under the Rollback guidance 
by non-selecting him for reenlistment.  The applicant did not 
provide any evidence of an error or injustice that would warrant 
a change of his RE code.

The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 25 Apr 2013, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded 
to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days.  As of 
this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit 
D).

________________________________________________________________

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 error or 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 this application in Executive Session on 9 Jan 2014, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, 13 Mar 2013.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 22 Apr 2013.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Apr 2013.
2 3