RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02205 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Reentry Code (RE) of 2X (1st term, 2nd term or career airman considered but not selected for reenlistment) be changed to 3V (Separated w/Vol Sep Incentive) so he can enlist in the Utah Air National Guard. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He accepted an early separation date of 1 Oct 06 when his original separation date was 23 Apr 07. While he was outprocessing the clerk was new and made a mistake by changing his Separation Code from KND (Failed to Obtain Retainability) to LBK (Involuntarily Discharged at End of Active Duty Obligated Service). His RE Code should be 3V because he received “Half Separation Pay” as a result of his early separation and was transferred into the Inactive Ready Reserve (IRR) for a term of 3 years. He would not have been accepted into the IRR if his RE Code of 2X was correct. In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, and paperwork related to his IRR status. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _______________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant entered active duty on 23 Apr 97. On 20 Apr 06, the applicant’s supervisor chose not to recommend the applicant for reenlistment, noting he had a referral Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) on file for 2005 and had not shown any improvement, he had numerous Letters of Counseling (LOCs)/Letters of Reprimand (LORs) during the past year, and had made it extremely clear he had no intention of reenlisting. The applicant’s commander did not select him for reenlistment, making him ineligible for reenlistment. On 1 Oct 06, the applicant was released from active duty with an Honorable service characterization, and was credited with nine years, five months, and nine days of active service. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice which would warrant correcting the record to allow the applicant to reenlist. AFI 36-2606 states commanders have selective reenlistment selection or non- selection authority. The Selective Reenlistment Program (SRP) considers the member’s 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 applicant’s supervisor recommended he not be eligible for reenlistment, and the applicants’ commander denied him reenlistment eligibility based on the applicant’s pattern of non-compliance, referral report with no improvement, and numerous LOCs/LORs. The applicant appealed and his appeal was denied on 29 Aug 06. His non-selection required he receive an RE Code of 2X per AFI 36-2606, Reenlistment in the US Air Force, Chapter 3. The applicant did not receive a separation bonus or separate under the Voluntary Separation Incentive (VSI) program as he is suggesting. At the time of the applicant’s separation there was no VSI program to apply for, and separating under VSI is the only way to get an RE Code of 3V. He received $13,571.87 in separation pay based on being forced out of the Air Force and having over 6 years of service. He did not have a choice to reenlist or stay in the Air Force. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 6 Aug 12 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 untimely 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 an 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 office of primary responsibility (OPR) and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice. The applicants’ commander denied him reenlistment eligibility. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief. ________________________________________________________________ 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-2012-02205 Executive Session on 10 Oct 12, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-02205 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 17 Apr 12, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 2 Jul 12. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Aug 12.