RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:		DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-02391

				COUNSEL:  NONE

				HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

His reentry code (RE) 2X (first term, second term or career 
airman considered but not selected for reenlistment under SRP) 
be changed to a 1.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He believes his code is unjust due to the fact that he had one 
small error in judgment as a young airman.  The RE code 2X 
prevents him from reenlisting.  He was an outstanding airman who 
had the respect of many of his supervisors.  He sincerely 
desires to serve his country.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a character 
statement.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at 
Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered the Regular Air Force on 28 August 2007.  
On 7 September 2010, he was notified that his supervisor “not 
recommended” him for reenlistment.  The supervisor noted the 
applicant had received one Article 15, four Letters of Reprimand 
and five Letters of Counseling.  The commander agreed with the 
supervisor and “not selected” the applicant for reenlistment.  
The applicant acknowledged the non-selection for reenlistment 
and elected not to appeal the decision on 22 September 2010.  
The applicant was honorably discharged on 31 May 2011 with an RE 
code of 2X.  

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial.  The applicant was discharged on 
31 May 2011 under the FY11 Air Force Shaping Rollback Program 
after serving 3 years, 9 months and 3 days.  The applicant was 
in his reenlistment window and was non-selected for reenlistment 
which required him to separate under the rollback guidance.  

AFI 36-2606, Reenlistments in the USAF, states commanders have 
selective reenlistment selection or non-selection authority.  
The Selective Reenlistment Program considers members enlisted 
performance ratings, unfavorable information from any 
substantiated source, the airman’s willingness to comply with AF 
standards and/or the airman’s ability, or lack thereof, to meet 
required training and duty performance levels.  

The applicant provides no proof of an error or injustice in 
reference to his RE code and his non-selection for reenlistment 
was in accordance with current guidance.

The complete DPSOA evaluation, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit C.

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the 
applicant on 14 August 2013, for review and comment within 
30 days (Exhibit D).  As of this date, this office has received 
no response.

________________________________________________________________

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 are not persuaded by the evidence 
submitted in his appeal that a change in his RE code is 
warranted.  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 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 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 AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC 2013-02391 in Executive Session on 16 January 2014 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:


The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 11 May 13, w/atch.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 21 Jun 13, w/atchs.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Aug 13.



1