RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03589 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be amended as follows: His separation code “JBK” which denotes “Completion of Required Active Service” be changed. His Reentry (RE) code “2X” which denotes “First-term, second- term or career airman considered but not selected for reenlistment under the Selective Reenlistment Program (SRP)” be changed. He be awarded any awards and decorations he may be entitled. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His separation and RE codes are unjust because of an injury he sustained while deployed to Afghanistan. He was separated without being able to sign his DD Form 214. The applicant provides no rationale as to why the Board should consider it in the interest of justice to consider his untimely application. The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant entered the Regular Air Force on 9 Aug 05. According to his AF IMT 418, Selective Reenlistment Program Consideration, dated 30 Mar 10, he was not selected for reenlistment by his commander. The reasons for the non-selection include Letters of Counseling (LOCs) and Letters of Reprimand (LORs) for missing mandatory appointments, not completing an assigned task, uniform not within standards and not completing leave paperwork prior to leaving the area for 14 days. He was also non-recommended for promotion and received an “average” rating on his 8 Apr 08 Enlisted Performance Report (EPR). Per AF 3070A, Record of Nonjudicial Punishment Proceedings (AB thru TSgt), dated 1 Jun 10, he received an Article 15, in violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Article 128, Assault, and was reduced to the grade of Airman First Class (A1C, E-3) with Date of Rank (DOR) of 1 Jun 10. He was honorably discharged on 30 Jun 10 with a narrative reason for separation of “Completion of Required Active Service” and RE code “2X.” AIR FORCE EVALUATION: NGB/A1PS recommends denial as he has not provided any supporting documentation to indicate any error or injustice occurred. A complete copy of the A1PS evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial of the applicant’s request that his separation code be changed. Based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge to include his separation code was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. The applicant did not provide any evidence of an error or injustice that occurred in the discharge processing. In respect to the applicant’s contention that he was not provided an opportunity to sign his DD Form 214. In Accordance With (IAW) AFI 36-3202, Separation Documents, the applicant’s signature on the DD Form 214 is not required and the separations’ office is authorized to indicate “member not available to sign” if the member is not physically present to sign the document. Therefore, Item 21 of the DD Form 214 is correct and IAW with AF instructions. A complete copy of the DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit D. AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial of the applicant’s request for a change of RE code. AFI 36-2606, Reenlistment in the USAF, states commanders have selective reenlistment selection or non-selection authority. The SRP considers the members EPR ratings, unfavorable information from any substantiated source, the airman’s willingness to comply with Air Force standards or the airman’s ability to meet required training and duty performance levels. It is clear his commander had justification for denial of reenlistment as there are four LOCs and four LORs listed in the remarks section of his AF IMT 418 dated 30 Mar 10. Additionally, the applicant received an Article 15 on 1 Jun 10. A complete copy of the DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit E. AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicant’s requests for any awards and decorations. DPSID was unable to locate any official documentation, nor did the applicant provide any, to verify any award or decoration for which he is eligible but did not receive. To grant relief would be contrary to the criteria established by DODM 1348.33, Manual of Military Decorations and Awards, Secretary of the Air Force and the Chief of Staff. A complete copy of the DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit F. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: He provides copies of medical record notes indicating that he was treated for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and major depression. The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit H. 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 an error or injustice to warrant changing his separation and RE codes. We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we find no evidence of an error or injustice that occurred in the discharge processing. Based on the available evidence of record, it appears the applicant’ discharge to include his separation and RE codes was consistent with the substantive requirements of the discharge authority. The medical records provided by the applicant are noted; however, he has not provided substantial evidence which would lead us to believe his separation and RE codes are contrary to the provisions of the governing regulation. With respect to the applicant’s request for awards and decorations, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of DPSID and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of proof that he has been the victim of an error or injustice. In view of this and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis upon which to recommend granting the relief sought. 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-2014-03589 in Executive Session on under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 29 Aug 14. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, NGB/A1PS, dated 30 Oct 14. Exhibit D. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 21 Nov 14. Exhibit E. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 22 Dec 14. Exhibit F. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSID, dated 9 Feb 15. Exhibit G. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Mar 15. Exhibit H. Medical Notes, Applicant, undated.