RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-00154 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. His Non-judicial Punishment (NJP) under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) imposed on 26 Jan 11, be declared void and removed from his records. 2. His Reentry (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 allow reentry in the military. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His disciplinary actions were due to circumstances that were out of his control but not treated as such. Since then, information has come to light that supports his assertions the incident was out of his control. None of this would have occurred if his ignition switch had not been faulty. This Non-Judicial punishment directly played into his placement on the Force Shaping list. In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of his Article 15, dated 21 Jan 11, an auto repair invoice dated 10 Feb 2011 and various other documents associated with his requests. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: According to the applicant’s DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, on 7 Oct 08, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force. On 21 Jan 11, the applicant’s commander offered him nonjudicial punishment for failing to go to his appointed place of duty. On 1 Feb 11, after consulting with counsel, the applicant accepted the Article 15 punishment which consisted of suspended reduction to the grade of Airman (AMN) through 25 Jul 11, forfeiture of $650 pay, and 14 days extra duty. According to the AF Form 418, Selective Reenlistment Program Consideration, on 16 Feb 11, the applicant’s commander non- selected him for reenlistment. On 29 Apr 11, the applicant’s commander vacated his suspended reduction to the grade of Amn for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty. The applicant was reduced to the grade of Amn, with a new date of rank of 26 Jan 11. On 31 May 11, the applicant received an honorable discharge under the Fiscal Year 2011 (FY11) AF Force Shaping Date of Separation (DOS) Rollback Program, and was credited with 2 years, 7 months, and 24 days of total active service. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial of the applicant’s request to remove the contested Article 15 punishment, indicating the applicant has not shown a clear error or injustice to reverse or otherwise change the commanders decision with respect to the NJP. The applicant states that circumstances "out of his control occurred, however, were not treated as such" and that "information has come to light that supports his case...." He asserts the manufacturer's recall caused a malfunction in his car and therefore he could not get to work on time. The applicant further states that "there was no phone that was provided for me to use to contact my supervisor about the incident" but that he woke a fellow Airman to drive him to his flight, where he was informed he "had been scratched off." The evidence provided by the applicant supports his assertion the issues with his vehicle were beyond his control and that there was a vehicle malfunction. Assuming, that the issue for which his car was repaired nearly three weeks later, was the same issue that made it impossible for him to drive to work the morning of 13 Jan 11. However, that gap in time diminishes the applicant's credibility, but there is a chance it could have been a result of the same vehicle malfunction. Despite the applicant’s assertions, there is evidence that the NJP was appropriate. The process itself was legally sufficient and the applicant was not denied any of his rights. The complete JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial of the applicant’s request to change his RE code to one that will allow him reentry in the military. The applicant contends the Article 15 he is asking to remove from his record directly played into his Forces Shaping discharge. Regardless of applicant’s contentions in reference to his last Article 15, he had another Article 15 for underage drinking, Letters of Reprimand for fighting and Letters of Counseling for dormitory inspection failures that could have led to his non-selection for reenlistment and Rollback Program discharge. AFI 36-2606, Reenlistment in the USAF, states that 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. The complete 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 9 Jul 15 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 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. 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. 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-2015-00154 in Executive Session on 3 Sep 15 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 24 Dec 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 8 Jun 15. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 1 Jul 15. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Jul 15.