RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03060 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Reentry code (RE) of 2X (First Term, Second Term or Career Airman nonselected for reenlistment) and Separation Program Designator (SPD) code JGH (Non-retention on active duty) be changed to allow him to reenter military service. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His discharge and narrative reason are inequitable with his existing service record. He served satisfactorily without any serious infractions. His separation was processed as an expedited separation when it should have been processed as a regular separation. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 3 Jun 08, the applicant commenced his enlistment in the Regular Air Force. On 2 Jun 14, the applicant was honorably discharged, with an RE code of 2X (First Term, Second Term or Career Airman nonselected for reenlistment) along with a SPD code of JGH (Non-retention on active duty), and was credited with six years of 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 and D. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial of the applicant’s request to change his SPD code indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. On 19 Mar 14, the applicant’s commander initiated an AF IMT 418, Selective Reenlistment Program Consideration, nonrecommending the applicant for reenlistment. The commander noted the applicant was performing as an average airman, not ready to take on added responsibilities, verbally counseled on numerous occasions, received complaints regarding his work performance and showed no initiative at work, and did not lead the younger airman. The applicant also received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for having an unsecured firearm, a referral performance report for violating HIPPA/DOD regulations, LOR, placement on the control roster, and Unfavorable Information File (UIF). The applicant acknowledged receipt and indicated he wished to appeal; however, there is no evidence the applicant submitted an appeal. Based on the commander’s nonrecommendation for retention, the applicant was honorably discharged. The applicant’s SPD code and his narrative reason for separation are correct as reflected on his DD Form 214. Based on the documentation on file in the applicant’s master personnel records, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirement of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. The applicant has not provided any evidence of an error or injustice regarding the processing of his discharge. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial of the applicant’s request to change his RE code indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. According to AFI 36-2606, Reenlistment in the USAF, commanders have the authority to select or nonselect a service member for reenlistment. Under the SRP, consideration is given to the service member’s performance report ratings, UIF, the member’s willingness to comply with Air Force standards, and the member’s ability (or lack of) to meet required training and duty performance levels. On 28 May 14, the applicant’s commander nonselected him for reenlistment noting several infractions under the Selective Reenlistment Program (SRP). The applicant acknowledged receipt and elected not to appeal. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOA evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 27 Oct 14 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). 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 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. 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-2014-03060 in Executive Session on 19 May 15 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 16 Jul 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 8 Aug 14, w/atchs. Exhibit D. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 4 Sep 14, w/atchs. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Oct 14.