RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-02703 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 Selective Re-enlistment Program (SRP)) be changed to allow him to reenlist in the Air Force, a reserve component, or another service. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: In December 2012, he accepted punishment under Article 15 and received a suspended reduction. As a result, he was denied reenlistment and separated under the Fiscal Year 2013 (FY13) Date of Separation Rollback Program. His misconduct was not a representation of his enlistment and his denial of reenlistment was not warranted. 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 24 Nov 08. On 14 Dec 12, the applicant received an Article 15 for dereliction in the performance of his duties by failing to attend the Motorcycle Safety Course, in violation of Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). As a result, his punishment consisted of a suspended reduction to the grade of airman first class (E-3) for six months and forfeiture of $990 pay. On 19 Dec 12, the applicant appealed the punishment and on 20 Dec 12, the appeal was granted in part and that portion of the forfeitures in excess of $495 pay was suspended for six months. On 19 Mar 13, the applicant’s commander non-selected him for reenlistment. In doing so, the commander indicated the applicant was serving a suspended punishment pursuant to an Article 15 imposed in December 2012. On 21 Mar 13, the applicant acknowledged receipt and on the same date, rendered an intent to appeal the commander’s decision. The applicant had until 1 Apr 13 to submit his appeal but failed to do so by the required date. On 31 May 13, the applicant was furnished an honorable discharge, with a RE code of 2X, and was credited with four years, six months, and seven 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, 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 and his non-selection for reenlistment was in accordance with current guidance. 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 SRP considers the member’s Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) 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 indicates he had a one-time deviation from standards; however, in addition to his Article 15, he also had a referral EPR for failing to meet physical fitness standards. The applicant was in his reenlistment window but was denied reenlistment, which required him to separate under the rollback guidance. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant indicates that while conducting the run portion of his physical fitness test, he started feeling faint and began to vomit uncontrollably. The staff recommended that he cease the test immediately and seek medical attention. They also informed him that he had three duty days to bring the medical documentation to his Unit Training Manager (UTM). Immediately upon completing the test, he went to urgent care and was diagnosed with Acid Reflux and was prescribed medication. He turned in all of the documentation to his UTM; however, unbeknownst to him, she was on leave at the time. While the UTM was on leave, his EPR closed out and he received a referral report as well as a Letter of Counseling (LOC) documenting the fitness failure. The applicant has provided copies of the medical documentation annotating his condition as well as a copy of the LOC for the Board’s consideration (Exhibit E). ________________________________________________________________ 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 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 of injustice. While we note the comments of the applicant in response to the advisory opinion describing the circumstances surrounding his fitness failure, the fitness failure was not part of the basis for the denial of reenlistment. The applicant’s arguments are duly noted; however, we do not find the evidence he has provided sufficient to conclude that the Article 15 punishment or the commander’s subsequent decision to deny him reenlistment were arbitrary or capricious, disproportionate to the circumstances, or represented an injustice when compared to those similarly situated. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief. ________________________________________________________________ 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-2013-02703 in Executive Session on 6 Mar 14, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 30 May 13. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 8 Jul 13. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Aug 13. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, undated, w/atchs. Panel Chair 4 5