RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-04153 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reentry (RE) code 2X, which denotes “First-term, second term, or career airman considered but not selected for reenlistment under the Selective Reenlistment Program (SRP)” be changed. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He is trying to reenlist in the Air National Guard; however, his recruiter informed him that he is ineligible to reenlist with RE code “2X.” He is not sure why the code is there. In support of his request, the applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release and Discharge from Active Duty. The applicant's complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 8 Jun 95, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force. On 24 Aug 98, the applicant was approved for retraining into AFSC 3C012 which denotes “Communications – Computer Systems Programming” with a class start date of 27 Jan 99 and graduation date of 14 Apr 99. On 7 Jun 99, the applicant was honorably discharged and received an RE code of 2X. He served on active duty for a period of four years. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force, which is attached at Exhibit B. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial. DPSOA states a search of the applicant’s record did not reveal an AF Form 418, Selective Reenlistment Program (SRP) Consideration non-selecting him. However, there is an ARPC Form 0-73, Record/Document Referral indicating the applicant had an ineligible RE Code and should have been discharged instead of released. Although there is no AF Form 418 in his records, there is a presumption of regularity in which the applicant was assigned the correct RE code (absent documentation to support an error). In addition, the applicant did not provide any evidence of an error or injustice that would warrant change of his RE code. The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit B. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant disputes the facts contained in the Air Force advisory opinion. Specifically, the part that states “he was not eligible to stay in the Air Force and had to separate based on the RE code 2X, and “should have been discharged (records sent to National Personnel Records Center) instead of released (records sent to ARPC – as done in this case erroneously).” The applicant states he was selected for promotion to the grade of staff sergeant; was inducted as a noncommissioned officer (NCO); received a career job reservation (CJR); was approved to cross-train into the 3C012 career field; was a first term airman who was selected under the SRP, and has an AF Form 100, Request and Authorization for Separation that reflects he was released from active duty/transferred to RESAF. The applicant states he does not have an AF Form 418 and neither does the Air Force. He has supported the fight since 1995 when he first enlisted in the Air Force and will continue to support the national security interests in this capacity. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations. 2. The application was timely 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. After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record and noting the applicant’s contentions, we are not persuaded that he has been the victim of an error or injustice. Although the entire package is not available for our review, based upon the presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs and without evidence to the contrary, we must assume that the applicant's RE Code was proper and in compliance with appropriate directives. Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or in justice. 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. 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 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 Docket Number BC-2011-04153 in Executive Session on 31 May 12, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2011-04153 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 14 Oct 11, w/atch. Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 6 Dec 11. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 Dec 11. Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 24 Dec 11.