RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-04124 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of “2X—First-term, second-term or career airman considered but not selected for reenlistment under the Selective Reenlistment Program (SRP),” be changed to a 1-series RE code. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He wanted to be with his wife as she finished college, so he accepted a “date of separation roll-back.” He does not understand why he received the “2X” RE code. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 24 Jan 06, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force. On 29 Sep 12, the applicant was released from active duty and transferred to the Air Force Reserves after completing his required active service. He received an honorable character of service and was credited with 6 years, 8 months and 7 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 the “2X” RE code is correct. The applicant was discharged on 29 Sep 12 under the FY12 Air Force Shaping Rollback Program. On 17 Nov 11, the applicant’s commander non-selected him for re-enlistement on an AF IMT 418, Selective Reenlistment Program Consideration. The applicant acknowledged non-selection and rendered his intent to appeal on 24 Mar 12; however, the applicant did not turn in an appeal package. He received an RE code of 2X. AFI 36-2606, Reenlistment in the USAF, states 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 File (UIF) 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. The applicant does not provide any proof of an error or injustice in reference to his RE code, but states he took a “date of separation rollback” so he could be with his family. However, separation under the Rollback program is involuntary not voluntary. Additionally, only airman involuntarily separated get separation pay and the applicant received separation pay per his DD Form 214 and his Individual Ready Reserve Agreement Conditional for Enlisted Separation Pay memorandum dated 13 Jun 2012. The applicant has requested an RE code in the 1-series. Per AFI 36-2606, chapter 5, Airman cannot separate in the RE code 1- series except for the RE code 1J—“Eligible to reenlist, but elects separation. (All Airmen selected under the SRP and elect separation are given RE code 1J).” The applicant cannot be awarded an RE code 1J, as his commander denied him reenlistment eligibility under the SRP. The complete 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 17 Nov 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 and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice. While we acknowledge the applicant’s request to change his RE code, we do not believe he has demonstrated evidence of an injustice, as compared to others in his similar situation. 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 documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-04124 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 28 Sep 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 30 Oct 14. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Nov 14.