RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03107

						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Reenlistment Code (RE) of 2X (1st term, 2nd term or career 
airman considered but not selected for reenlistment) be changed.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He received an Article 15 and lost his E-6 Promotion for an 
indiscretion that he accepted responsibility for.  Weeks after 
his punishment was served, his previously approved reenlistment 
paperwork was changed and he was denied reenlistment by his 
commander.  If he knew accepting the Article 15 would result in 
him being denied re-enlistment and the loss of a position with 
the Air Force Reserve that he was contemplating, he might have 
tried to plead his case with a court-martial.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit A.


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 
5 Mar 97.

On 9 Feb 07, the applicant received an Article 15, for 
dereliction in his duties in that he failed to refrain from 
consuming alcoholic beverages while on alert status.  Punishment 
consisted of reduction to the grade of senior airman (E-4) and 
30 days extra duty.

On 19 Apr 07, the applicant was honorably discharged and issued 
an RE code of 2X, and was credited with 10 years, 1 month, and 
14 days of active service.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of 
primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C.    


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of 
an error or an injustice.  The applicant was separated on 19 Apr 
07 with an honorable character of service.  He was not eligible 
for reenlistment and had to separate on his Date of Separation 
(DOS).  As a result, he was issued an RE code of 2X—“First-term, 
second-term or career airman considered but not selected for 
reenlistment under the selective reenlistment program (SRP).”  A 
printout from the personnel data system confirms the applicant’s 
RE code of 2X.  The applicant’s record also contains a Memo for 
Record (MFR), dated 26 Feb 07, stating that he had previously 
been reenlistment eligible but due to new derogatory information 
he was now being denied reenlistment.  Although the applicant 
was initially eligible to reenlist, his commander decided to 
deny his reenlistment eligibility based on additional 
unfavorable information.  It is not uncommon for Airman to be 
initially selected for reenlistment and then denied reenlistment 
eligibility due to new unfavorable information if the Airman has 
not reenlisted yet.  In accordance with AFI 36-2606, 
Reenlistment in the USAF, states commanders have selective 
reenlistment selection or non-selection authority, the SRP 
considers the members 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.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOA 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 11 Feb 15 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-2014-03107 in Executive Session on 16 Apr 15, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:


The following documentary evidence pertaining AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2014-03107 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 24 Jul 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 29 Aug 14.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Feb 15.