RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-00272 COUNSEL:	NONE
HEARING DESIRED:	NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His reentry (RE) code be changed from 6U to Re-R1.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He wants to reenlist in the Air National guard; however, the 6U RE code prevents him from doing so. The 6U RE code is unjust because it is based on a background check on his credit report showing foreclosure and a low credit score.  He is working with a private company to ensure his credit report is accurate.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 17 Sep 09, the applicant entered the Air National Guard.
On 16 Sep 12 the applicant was separated from the ANG, with an RE code of 6U, and credited with 2 years and 11 months 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:
NGB/A1P recommends denial of the request to change reenlistment code from 6U to RE-R1. ANGI 36-2002, states when an individual has a 6U RE code, they were not selected for retention by the commander and they are not eligible to reenlist or extend. There is no evidence an injustice has occurred. The applicant would have to provide proof the commander’s reason was based on a background check and then resolution to change the RE code.

A complete copy of the NGB/A1P 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 15 Oct 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-2015-00272 in Executive Session on 15 Dec 15 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

Panel Chair Member Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-00272 was considered:

Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 1 Jan 15, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, NGB/A1P, dated 24 Mar 15. Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Oct 15.