RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01281 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Separation Program Designator (SPD) code “LGH” (Non- retention on active duty) is inaccurate and unjust. His Reentry (RE) code “2X” (First-term, second-term or career airman considered but not selected for reenlistment under the Selective Reenlistment Program (SRP)) be changed to allow him to serve in the Air National Guard. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His SPD “LGH” defines his reason for discharge as a failure to meet standards and based on his record of performance this code is inaccurate and unjust. His RE code “2X” is inaccurate and unjust as he is currently a fully qualified Aerospace Ground Equipment Craftsman with seven years of experience. In support of his request, he provides copies of his Enlisted Evaluations Reports, Letters of Appreciation, and Character Statements. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 21 Feb 06. On 23 Feb 14, the applicant was furnished an Honorable discharge, and was credited with 8 years and 3 days of active service. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandums prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibits C and D. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. The SPD code “LGH” means “Non- Retention on Active Duty”. The applicant was not recommended by his commander for retention, therefore, in accordance with the DOS rollback program, he was separated. Based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge to include the SPD code, narrative reason for separation and character of service was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was with the discretion of the discharge authority. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. AFI 36-2606, Reenlistment in the USAF, states commanders have reenlistment selective and non- selective authority. The Selective Reenlistment Program (SRP) considers the members Enlisted Performance Reports (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. On 9 Aug 13, the applicant was non-selected for reenlistment. On 23 Sep 13, the applicant acknowledged the denial of his appeal. The applicant was discharged on 23 Feb 2013 under the FY12 Air Force - Force Shaping Rollback Program. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 1 Oct 14 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E). 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 opinion and recommendation of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR) and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that 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 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-2014-01281 in Executive Session on 16 Dec 14 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 13 Mar 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Excerpt from Military Personnel Records Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 28 Apr 14. Exhibit D. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 4 May 14. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Oct 14.