RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02577 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. His Re-entry (RE) code of “2X” (1st Term, 2nd Term or Career AMN Not Selected under Selection Retention Process (SRP)) be changed to allow him to return to service and finish his term of service. 2. He be reinstated in the rank/grade of Airman First Class (A1C), (E-3) and receive all back pay and allowances associated with that grade. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His discharge was an injustice. His commander wrongfully discharged him for a crime he did not commit. He was under investigation for sexual assault of another military member but all charges were dropped when the case ended. His commander placed him in a “double jeopardy” situation because he was charged for the same crime but with a lesser punishment. His commander gave him a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) and shortly thereafter added his name to the FY10 Phase II Date of Separation (DOS) Rollback Program and subsequently discharged him from active duty. Item 28 “Narrative Reason for Separation” on his DD Form 214, Certificate of Discharge or Release from Active Duty should read “Reduction in Force” but instead it reads “Completion of Required Active Service”. This is wrong since he did not complete his full term of service. In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal statement dated 7 July 2011, his DD Form 214, AF IMT 100, Request and Authorization for Separation, DD Form 2648, Pre- Separation Counseling Checklist for Active Component Service Members, AF IMT 1137, Unfavorable Information File Summary, AF IMT 1058 Unfavorable Information File Action, AF IMT 418, Selective Reenlistment Program Consideration, Letter of Reprimand dated 25 March 2010, 3AMXS/MXAGW Weapons Load Crew Chief Memorandum Subject: Referral of Enlisted Performance Report dated 11 May 2010, AF Form 910, Enlisted Performance Report (AB thru TSgt) dated 9 Sep 2008 thru 8 May 2010, and other associated related documents. The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 9 September 2008. He was discharged under the DOS Rollback Program on 30 June 2010 with an honorable characterization of service. He was credited with 1 year, 9 months, and 22 days of active duty service of which 1 year, 4 months and 13 days is listed as Foreign Service. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application extracted from the applicant’s military personnel records are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate Air Force offices of primary responsibility (Exhibits C and D). Accordingly there is no need to recite these facts in this Record of Proceedings. ______________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial. DPSOS states the DOS rollback program utilizes the Separation Program Designator (SPD) code JBK (less than 6 years of active service) or LBK (more than 6 years of active service) with a corresponding narrative reason for separation of “Completion of Required Active Service” since the member is denied further continuation or reenlistment and as in the applicant’s case, the DOS/ETS may be involuntarily accelerated. The involuntary SPD codes of JBK or LBK (Completion of Required Service) as determined by the Air Force, also relieved members of recoupment obligation for unserved portions of bonuses since the member’s term of service was involuntarily accelerated. The applicant did not provide any evidence of an error or injustice to warrant the requested change to his discharge characterization. Based on the documentation on file in his master personnel records, the discharge to include the characterization of service was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge manual and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. The complete AFPC/DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial. DPSOA states AFI 36-2606, Reenlistments in the United States Air Force states commanders have selective reenlistment selection or non-selection authority. The applicant does not provide any evidence of an error or injustice in reference to his RE code. The complete AFPC/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 10 November 2011 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, this office has not received a response. ________________________________________________________________ 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 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 offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 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 issue(s) involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that 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 this application BC-2011-02577 in Executive Session on 23 February 2012, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149 dated 22 June 2011, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 27 September 2011. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 24 October 2011. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 November 2011. Panel Chair