RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-03414 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED ________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 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. ________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The RE code of 2X was given based on the down-sizing of active duty personnel due to “Force Shaping” policies. He would like the code removed so that he can join the ANG or another branch of service. The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force. ________________________________________________________________ THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial stating, in part, the applicant did not provide any evidence of an error or injustice that would warrant a change of his RE code. The applicant was separated on 31 Mar 2011 under the AF Force Shaping Program after serving 9 years, 1 month, and 25 days of service with an honorable character of service. According to his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, he was authorized separation pay. He received RE code 2X A thorough search of applicant's record did not reveal an AF Form 418, Selective Reenlistment Program Consideration indicating his non-selection for reenlistment; however, a printout from the Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS) dated 13 Oct 2011, did reflect the RE code 2X and that his last evaluation report was a referral. Although there is no AF Form 418 in his records, DPSOA confirmed the applicant was on the Force Shaping Roll Back list. All members indentified on the Roll Back were considered for non- selection of reenlistment by their commanders. The applicant was on the list of Roll Back members that had been non-selected for reenlistment; which required update of the RE code 2X. The RE code 2X is updated once the AF Form 418 has been completed. DPSOA believes the applicant's 418 was lost somewhere in the Roll Back process. AFI 36-2606, Reenlistment in the USAF, states commanders have selective reenlistment selection or non- selection authority. The Selective Reenlistment Program (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 AFPC/DPSOA evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 10 Nov 10 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D). ________________________________________________________________ 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. At the time members are separated from the Air Force, they are furnished an RE code predicated upon the quality of their service and the circumstances of their separation. The applicant’s RE code of 2X accurately reflects that he was considered but not selected for reenlistment under the Selective Reenlistment Program. While we note the AF Form 418 was not available for the Board’s review, in our view, the Air Force office of primary responsibility has adequately addressed the issues presented by the applicant and we are in agreement with its opinion and recommendation. Therefore, after thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record, and given the circumstances surrounding his separation, we find the RE code was issued in accordance with the governing directives and that a change of the applicant’s RE code is not warranted. In view of the above and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. ________________________________________________________________ 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-2011-03414 in Executive Session on 22 May 2012, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, not dated, w/atch. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 13 Oct 11. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Nov 11.