RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-03787 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Separation Code of “LBK” with a narrative reason for separation of “Completion of Required Service” and his Reentry Code of “2X” “1ST-Term, 2ND-Term or Career Amn Not Selected Under Selective Reenlistment Program (SRP)” be changed to allow him entry into a Naval Officers program. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His separation code indicates he is undesirable for reentry into the Armed Forces. This is preventing him from entry into a Naval Officers program after he graduates from college. He served all his time honorably and without incident. He is currently in perfect physical shape. The only thing keeping him from furthering his career with the Armed Forces as a linguist is the code on his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty. He requests that the RE code be amended to show that he is fit for reenlistment. In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of his DD Form 214. The applicant’s complete submission with attachments is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 2 December 1998. On 23 October 2001, the applicant received an Article 15 for violation of Article 86 “Failure To Go At The Time Prescribed To His Appointed Place Of Duty.”, with punishment consisting of forfeiture of $100.00 pay and reduction to the grade of Airman, E-2, suspended until 22 January 2002 after which time it would be remitted without further action, unless sooner vacated. On 1 December 2002 the applicant was released from active duty with an honorable character of service. He was credited with completing 4 years of active duty service. ______________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial. DPSOS states the applicant was separated due to completion of required active service and was considered but not selected for reenlistment under the Selective Reenlistment Program. Based upon the denial of reenlistment, the applicant was properly separated. The applicant states he would like to reenlist as a linguist in a naval officer program upon his graduation from college. However, his discharge was not voluntary, but rather because of his ineligibility to reenlist. Although the applicant’s rationale for the requested change is in good spirit, it should be pointed out that the separation code reason and RE code authorized him one-half separation pay and any correction to his separation code could result in the recoupment of the separation pay. Based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge to include the separation code was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. The applicant did not provide any evidence of an error or injustice in the discharge processing. The complete AFPC/DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial. DPSOA states, the applicant’s RE code 2X is required per AFI 36-2606, Reenlistments in the USAF. The AFI states, commanders have selective reenlistment selection or non-selection authority. The Selective 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. A thorough search of the applicant’s record did not reveal an AF Form 418, Selective Reenlistment Program Consideration non-selecting him; however, a printout from the Personnel Data System dated 15 November 2011 identified the applicant was non-selected for reenlistment. Additionally, the applicant received an Article 15 that would support the RE code 2X. The applicant states he does not have any evidence to support his claim other than what is on the DD Form 214 which indicates he served his term of enlistment and received an honorable discharge. The applicant did not provide any evidence of error or injustice that would warrant change of 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 2 December 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 not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file. 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 opinions and recommendations 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. ________________________________________________________________ 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-2011-03787 in Executive Session on 17 April 2012, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149 dated 27 September 2010, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 20 October 2011. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 15 November 2011. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 December 2011.