RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01150 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1.  His reentry (RE) code of “2X” (First term airman considered but not selected for reenlistment) be changed to “1J” (Eligible to reenlist, but elected separation). 2.  His separation program designator (SPD) code of “JGH” (Non retention on active duty) be change to one which would allow him to reenlist. 3.  His AF Form 418, Selective Reenlistment Program Consideration, dated 10 Jul 13, be declared void and be removed from his official record. 4.  His referral Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) covering the period 15 Aug 12 through 14 Aug 13 be declared void and be removed from his official record. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: At the time of his separation he communicated to his flight that he did not want to reenlist. He was having relationship issues, but he did not fail to maintain standards. The statements on his AF Form 418 are completely inaccurate and do not correctly reflect his character. He did not feel he was being disrespectful and he was doing his job to the best of his ability. His flight made him feel very alone and scared with no support while he was trying to uphold standards. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 15 Dec 09. On 5 Sep 13, the applicant received a referral EPR covering the period 15 Aug 12 through 14 Aug 13, on which he was marked “Does Note Meet” in Block 2, Standards, Conduct, Character & Military Bearing. The EPR included the statements, “Received LOC for disrespecting an Officer and SNCO—displayed breakdown in military standards,” and “Issued LOR from Squadron Superintendent for sexual harassment of a fellow Airman.” On 10 Jul 13, the applicant’s commander did not select him for reenlistment, concluding: “It is my strong belief and opinion that (the applicant) does not meet the military standards or expectations required to serve and should not be allowed a second enlistment.” The applicant did not appeal this decision. On 14 Dec 13, the applicant was furnished an honorable discharge, with an SPD code of “JGH,” an RE code of “2X,” a narrative reason for separation of “non-retention on active duty,” and was credited with four years of total active service. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memoranda prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibits C, D, and E. AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice concerning his RE code. In accordance with AFI 36-2606, Reenlistment in the USAF, commanders have selective reenlistment selection or non-selection authority. The Selective Reenlistment Program (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 thereof) to meet required training and duty performance levels. The applicant’s AF Form 418 indicates his non-selection for reenlistment was due to his failure to meet standards, and he chose not to appeal his commander’s decision at the time. His RE code of 2X is correct. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice concerning his SPD code, narrative reason for separation, or characterization of service. The applicant’s commander decided not to select him for reenlistment under the Fiscal Year 2013 Force Management Program, indicating the applicant had displayed multiple qualities which were not conducive to a healthy and successful military environment or career. Specifically, the applicant displayed continual time management issues involving completing tasks and products late, or not completing them at all. Numerous major errors were noted as occurring on his shift and the applicant typically had to remain at work after his shift to accomplish the missed or incorrect tasks. Normal local training lasted not more than nine weeks, however, due to his resistance, his training had to continue for an additional five weeks. The applicant was argumentative and often times his attitude was blatantly disrespectful. He displayed inappropriate behavior towards female airmen, which was a major concern. The applicant was counseled and reprimanded many times by his direct supervisor, the flight chief, and the flight commanders about his inappropriate and explicit comments, but the problem persisted. Based upon the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and within the discretion of the discharge authority. The applicant did not provide any evidence of an error or injustice. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit D. AFPC/DPSID recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice concerning his referral EPR. The applicant contends his referral EPR is unjust based on the mention of his having received a Letter of Counseling (LOC) for disrespecting an officer and a senior noncommissioned officer as well as an LOR for sexual harassment of a fellow airman. However, the evaluators are obliged to consider such incidents, their significance, and the frequency with which they occurred in assessing performance and potential. The applicant’s evaluators appropriately chose to document his wrongdoing. He has provided no evidence to show his referral EPR was inaccurate or unjust. In addition, the applicant questions whether or not his supervisor had a sufficient amount of time supervising him to make the report a referral. At a minimum, a rater is required to have 120 days of supervision, while the applicant’s rater had 196 days of supervision at the time of the EPR in question. A final review of the contested evaluation was accomplished by the additional rater and a subsequent agreement by the reviewer/commander served as a final “check and balance.” The applicant has not substantiated his referral EPR was not rendered accurately and in good faith by his evaluators. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit E. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 17 Aug 15 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit F). As of this date, no response has been received by this office. 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 opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR) and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice. 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-2014-01150 in Executive Session on 29 Sep 15 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 17 Mar 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 8 May 14. Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 30 May 14. Exhibit E.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSID, dated 10 Aug 15. Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Aug 15.