RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02787 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Reentry (RE) code of 2X, which denotes "1st term, 2nd term or career airman considered but not selected for reenlistment under the selective reenlistment program (SRP)," be changed to allow his reentry into the military. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was required to separate under a DoD mandated reduction of forces program and wants to be able to reenlist in the Reserves. The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 30 Mar 2009, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force. On 17 Feb 2011, the applicant was notified by his commander that he was not recommending him for reenlistment in the Air Force. His reason for this action was the applicant had a history of not meeting Air Force standards. On 17 Feb 2011, the applicant acknowledged receipt of his non- selection for reenlistment and stated he did not intend to appeal this decision. On 31 May 2011, the applicant was honorably discharged. His narrative reason for separation was “completion of required active service.” ________________________________________________________________ THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial. DPSOA states that in accordance with AFI 36-2606, Reenlistment in the USAF, commanders have selective reenlistment selection or non-selection authority. The SRP considers the member’s Enlisted Performance Report 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 was discharged under the AF Force Shaping Rollback Program after serving two years, two months, and one day of service. He was identified as eligible for the rollback based on being on the Control Roster (CR). However, being on the CR only made him eligible for the Rollback; his commander made a conscious decision to separate him under the Rollback guidance by non-selecting him for reenlistment. He did not appeal the decision and did not provide any evidence of an error or injustice that would warrant a change of his RE code. The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 22 Aug 2012, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant 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. 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 and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion 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 Docket Number BC- 2012-02787 in Executive Session on 7 Mar 2013, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 23 Jun 2012. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 31 Jul 2012. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 Aug 2012.