RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2016-01490 

						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  YES

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her separation code (SPD) and reentry code (RE) be changed to whatever it would have been prior to initiating an AF Form 418, Selective Reenlistment Program (SRP) Consideration for Airmen in the Regular Air Force/Air Force Reserve.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Proper procedures were not followed.  On 23 Apr 15, she requested a 14-month extension of her enlistment, in order to reach her high-year of tenure (HYT) of 9 Sep 16.  Her commander recommended disapproval due to substandard performance.  However, only her first performance report indicated substandard performance, she successfully completed probation/rehabilitation and subsequently received improved ratings.  After providing the commander’s recommendation, her request for extension was not forwarded to the Military Personnel Section (MPS) for further processing, where it would have been approved or disapproved.  Had it been appropriately processed as a disapproval she should have been afforded the opportunity to appeal the decision.

On 21 May 15, her commander signed the AF Form 418, indicating she was not selected for reenlistment, without discussing the reasons for non-selection or the appeal process.  Furthermore, there was no documentation attached to the AF Form 418 supporting the commander’s decision to non-select.  Meanwhile, on 24 Apr 15, her commander signed her 31 Mar 15 performance report, indicating he concurred with the supervisor’s determination that she met standards.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 9 Sep 08.

On 8 Sep 15, the applicant was furnished an honorable discharge, and was credited with 7 years of active service.  

DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, Item 26, Separation Code, reflects LGH (Non-retention on active duty); and Item 27, Reentry Code, reflects 2X (First Term, Second Term, or Career Airman nonselected for reenlistment).

A review of personnel records reflects the following:

On 11 May 10, the applicant received a referral Enlisted Performance Report, with a closing date of 8 May 10, which reflects she does not meet standards.

The applicant received two subsequent performance reports, with 8 May 11 and 1 Mar 12 closing dates, which reflects she meets or exceeds standards.

On 28 Mar 12, AF Form 1411, Extension or Cancellation of Extensions of Enlistment in the Regular Air Force (REGAF)/Air Force Reserve (AF Reserve)/Air National Guard (ANG), reflects her request for an extension to her Date of Separation (DOS), from     8 Sep 14 to 8 Jul 15, for the purpose of reassignment, was approved.  At that time her RE code was reflected as 3C (first-term airman, not yet considered under SRP).    

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memoranda prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility, which are attached at Exhibits C and D.    

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DP3ST recommends denial of changing the RE code, indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. 

AFI 36-2606, Reenlistment in the United States Air Force, states commanders have selective reenlistment selection or non-selection authority.  The reenlistment program 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 commander was acting within his authority when he denied applicant reenlistment eligibility.

Regarding the commander’s denial for an extension to her HYT, the commander was going to disapprove the extension for reasons that would also make applicant ineligible for reenlistment.  It would not make sense to disapprove applicant’s request to extend to her HYT but leave her reenlistment eligible.  Therefore the MPS and commander were instructed to stop the extension processing and take the appropriate non-selection for reenlistment action (AF Form 418) if the commander determined applicant was not reenlistment eligible.  The approval level for appeal of the extension or appeal of the denial of reenlistment is the same in the applicant’s case.  Although it’s clear the denial of extension appeal would have been disapproved (same level that disapproved the denial of reenlistment appeal), it would not have made sense to continue to process the extension disapproval and then process the denial of reenlistment, which was required based on the commanders statement.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DP3ST evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DP2STM recommends denial of changing the SPD code, indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. 

The applicant was separated based upon her commander not recommending her for further retention in the Air Force, with an RE code of 2X, “first-term, second term or career airman was considered but not selected for reenlistment under SRP.”  Based upon the applicant’s denial of reenlistment, she was properly separated with a SPD code of LGH, “Non-retention on active duty.”

A complete copy of the AFPC/DP2STM evaluation is at Exhibit D.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Board sent a copy of the Air Force evaluation to the applicant on 22 Feb 17 for comment (Exhibit E), and the applicant replied on 16 Mar 17.  In her response, the applicant reiterated her initial contentions.  The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit F.

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 opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their 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.

4.  The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

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-2016-01490 in Executive Session on 7 Sep 17 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2016-01490 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 5 Apr 16, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Excerpts from Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DP3ST, dated 8 Jul 16.
	Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DP2STM, dated 16 Nov 16.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 22 Feb 17.
	Exhibit F.  Applicant Rebuttal, dated 16 Mar 17.

Pursuant to paragraph 1 of AFI 36-2603 (Title 32 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 865.1), it is certified that a quorum was present at the Board's review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board's proceedings in the above entitled matter.