RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-03223
		
  	  		COUNSEL:  NONE
		
			HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His discharge be changed to reflect a medical retirement.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He injured his right shoulder, right ankle and had knee surgery.  
He was unable to perform his duties as a squadron officer school 
trainer for survival school.  He should have been medically 
retired.  He was forced out of the Air Force under the Early Out 
Rollback instead.

In support of his appeal, the applicant submits his DD Form 214, 
Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty and his 
medical records.

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 
served from 7 January 1985 through 1 April 1988.  The 
applicant’s narrative reason for separation is listed as Early 
Separation Program – Strength Reduction and his service was 
characterized as honorable.  He was credited with 3 years, 
2 months and 24 days of active duty service.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial.  The applicant’s commander 
completed AF IMT 418, Selective Reenlistment Program (SRP) 
Consideration, and non-selected him for reenlistment and stated 
the applicant consistently failed to show the initiative and 
leadership commensurate with his grade.  Additionally, he noted 
the applicant had not conformed to military standards.  

He was separated due to the Early Separation Program – Strength 
Reduction with an RE code of 2X, first term, second term or 
career airman and was considered but not selected for 
reenlistment under the SRP.  Based upon the applicant’s denial 
of reenlistment, he was properly separated with a separation 
code of “J22” Strength Reduction, and denied reenlistment. 

The applicant states he injured his right shoulder, right ankle 
and had knee surgery.  The applicant’s commander stated he was 
counseled on numerous occasions concerning his disregard for 
authority and failure to report for duty at the appointed times. 
He was given several chances to change his behavior, meet 
standards and adhere to rules. 

Although they cannot confirm what the commander’s intention was, 
the fact remains that he was placed in the Rollback Program and 
given an RE code of 2X.

The applicant did not provide any evidence of an error or 
injustice to warrant the requested change.

The complete DPSOR 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 10 January 2014, for review and comment within 
30 days (Exhibit D).  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 error or injustice.  We took notice 
of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of 
the case; however, we are not persuaded by the evidence 
submitted in this appeal that a change in the record is 
warranted.  Therefore, we agree with the opinion and 
recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility 
and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that 
the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  
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 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-2013-03223 in Executive Session on 1 April 2014, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 Jun 13, w/atchs.
Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 6 Sep 13.
Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Jan 14.







1