RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2016-03713

	COUNSEL: NONE
	
	HEARING: NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code 2X--(First-term, second-term or career airman considered but not selected for reenlistment under the Selective Reenlistment Program [SRP]) be upgraded.  

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He has learned from the mistakes he made as a young airman and requests an upgrade to either RE Code 1M, 1P or 1Q so that he can re-enter the military.  He also was not given a fair chance to dispute his case to his squadron commander at the time of discharge and because English was his second language.  He also was not aware of the appeal process when he signed the Article 15 action given to him on 26 Mar 03.  The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is a former Air Force airman first class.  

On 26 Mar 03, the applicant was notified of his commander’s intent to offer Article 15 (nonjudicial punishment) for Violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 92, derelict in the performance of his duties.

On 31 Mar 03, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the action and elected to consult a lawyer, waive his right to court-martial and accept nonjudicial punishment proceedings, provide a written presentation and request for a personal appearance.

On 3 Apr 03, the applicant was notified of the commander’s decision that nonjudicial punishment was appropriate and imposed a reduction to the grade of E-2, suspended through 2 Oct 03 and seven days extra duty.  

On 3 Apr 03, the applicant acknowledged the action and elected not to appeal.

On 11 May 03, the legal authority found the action legally sufficient.

On 26 Jan 04, the applicant was notified his commander non-selected him for reenlistment on AF Form 418, Selective Reenlistment Program Consideration, based on an Article 15 (nonjudicial punishment), two Letters of Reprimand, two Records of Individual Counseling, and a Memo for Record for various disciplinary infractions.

On 3 Feb 04, the applicant acknowledged the non-selection for reenlistment and rendered his intent to appeal the decision within the mandated 10 calendar days and by 13 Feb 04 the applicant had not submitted his appeal.

On 20 Feb 04, the applicant submitted his appeal to the Commander’s Support Staff.

For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B and the advisory at Exhibit C.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DP3SP recommends denying the application.  The applicant’s RE code was updated to 2X based on his non-selection for reenlistment.  The applicant requests RE code 1M, 1P, or 1Q, however per AFI 36-2606, (dated 21 Nov 2001) Reenlistments in the USAF, table 3.1, airmen may not be separated with these RE codes.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Board sent a copy of the Air Force evaluation to the applicant on 10 Jan 17 for comment (Exhibit D), but has received no response.

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The application was not timely filed.

2.  The applicant exhausted all available avenues of non-judicial relief before applying to the Board.

3.   After thoroughly reviewing all Exhibits, it is the Board’s opinion that the applicant is not the victim of an injustice.  The Board concurs with the rationale and recommendation of AFPC/DP3SP and finds that a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  The Board also notes the applicant did not file the application within three years after the alleged error or injustice was discovered, or should have been discovered, as required by Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552, and Air Force Instruction 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR).  Moreover, the applicant has offered no plausible reason for the delay in filing the application.  The Board finds the application untimely and concludes it would not be in the interest of justice to excuse the delay.  Therefore, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The applicant be informed the application was not timely filed; it would not be in the interest of justice to excuse the delay; and the application will only be reconsidered upon receipt of relevant evidence not already considered by the Board.

CERTIFICATION:

The following quorum of the Board, as defined in Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR), paragraph 1.5, considered Docket Number BC-2016-03713 in Executive Session on 13 Jun 18:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

All members voted not to correct the record.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 8 Sep 16.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Advisory opinion, AFPC/DP3ST, dated 18 Nov 16.
Exhibit D:	Notification of Advisory, AFBCMR to applicant, dated 10 Jan 17.

Taken together with all Exhibits, this document constitutes the true and complete Record of Proceedings required by AFI 36-2603, paragraph 4.11.9.