RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-00356 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ _ 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 to a code that would allow him to reenlist. ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was told by his first sergeant that he would be able to join the Air Force Reserve with the RE code he received. In support of the applicant’s appeal, he provides a copy of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active duty. The applicant's complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ _ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 31 March 2012, the applicant was honorably released from active duty under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, Completion of Required Active Service. He served 7 years, 7 months, and 13 days on active duty. The remaining 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 at Exhibit c. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial. DPSOA states the applicant was discharged on 31 March 2012 under the FY12 AF Force Shaping Rollback Program. The applicant’s commander non-selected him for reenlistment on 29 November 2011. The applicant acknowledged non-selection and rendered his intent not to appeal the decision on 18 November 2011. 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 applicant does not provide any proof of an error or injustice in reference to his RE code. Although a waiver in the applicant’s case would be up to the individual components decision and they may not desire a member who was denied reenlistment, having his RE code changed to circumvent the selection or waiver process would not be appropriate. The DPSOA complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 22 March 2013, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days (Exhibit D). As of this date, no response has been received by this office. ________________________________________________________________ _ 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 an error or injustice. After a thorough review of the evidence of record, we believe that given the circumstances surrounding his separation from the Air Force, the RE code assigned was proper and in compliance with the appropriate instructions. In addition, the applicant has not provided any evidence which would lead us to believe that a change to his RE code to allow him to reenlist is warranted. Therefore, we agree with 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 injustice. 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 an 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-2013-00356 in Executive Session on 17 October 2013, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 18 January 2013, w/atch. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Available Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 5 March 2013. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 March 2013. 2 3 4