RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-01494 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Separation Program Designator (SPD) code of “K13” (Completed Extended Enlistment) be changed so he may reenter in the Air Force. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His SPD Code for his discharge has been changed and is no longer applicable to his separation. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________ ______________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant’s military personnel records indicate he enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 26 Apr 71. On 10 Nov 82, the applicant received an Article 15 for operating a vehicle while drunk, in violation of Article 111 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). As a result, his punishment consisted of forfeiture of $365.00 of his base pay and 15 days restriction to base. On 14 Dec 82, the applicant’s commander denied him the award of the Air Force Good Conduct Medal (AFGCM) based on a review of his personnel record and/or unfavorable information file. On 1 Apr 86, the applicant was issued a referral Airman Performance Report (APR) for the period of 30 Mar 85 to 29 Mar 86 based on unsatisfactory progress in the area of Non- commissioned Officer (NCO) responsibilities. On 20 Jan 87, the applicant was furnished an honorable discharge with a narrative reason for separation of “Completed Extended Enlistment,” a reenlistment code (RE) of “2X” (first-term, second term, or career airman considered but not selected for reenlistment) and issued an SPD code of “K13” (Completed Extended Enlistment). He was credited with 15 years, 8 months, and 24 days of total active service. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force, which is attached at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. There was no error in the preparation of the applicant’s DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, and the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. The applicant’s military personnel records indicate he was not selected for reenlistment by his commander which established a RE code of 2X. In accordance with AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, Table 1.4, the applicant was appropriately discharged from the Air Force as reflected on his DD Form 214. While a review of the applicant’s record did not reveal an AF Form 418, Selective Reenlistment Program (SRP) Consideration, non-selecting him, his records did reflect that he was ineligible for promotion based on being denied reenlistment. At the time of the applicant’s separation in January 1987, the SPD code “K13” was the correct SPD code used for members separating for “Completed Extended Enlistment.” The applicant’s SPD code should not be changed. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant indicates that he was never informed that he was not promotable and the reason he was not promoted was because he received a poor performance report that led to his reenlistment being denied. The low rating on his performance report came as a total surprise to him because his rater had not shown any dissatisfaction of his performance whether verbally or in writing. He has recently begun a regimen of antidepressant medications for issues that he should have requested help for years ago. If he had gotten the necessary help sooner, he would have been promoted and been allowed to remain in the Air Force. A complete copy of the applicant’s response is at Exhibit E. ________________________________________________________________ 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 an error or injustice. We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission, including his rebuttal response, 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 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-2013-01494 in Executive Session on 19 Dec 13, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 19 Mar 13, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 28 May 13. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Jun 13. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 15 Jul 13. Panel Chair 3