RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-03451 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reentry (RE) code of 2X (1st term, 2nd term or career airman considered but not selected for reenlistment) be changed to allow entry into the military. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He should be allowed to reenlist. The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 18 Aug 09. On 8 Sep 10, the applicant received non-judicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The reason for the action was that on 15 Aug 10, he was found sleeping on his post while posted as a security forces lookout. His commander imposed punishment consisting of a reduction to the grade of Airman (E-2), 20 days extra duty, and a Reprimand. On 14 Feb 11, the applicant’s supervisor initiated an AF Form 418, Selective Reenlistment Program (SRP) Consideration, wherin he recommended the applicant be denied re-enlistment. On 18 Feb 11, the applicant’s commander concurred with the proposed action and denied him re-enlistment. On 30 Apr 11, the Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), rendered for the period 18 Aug 09 through 17 Apr 11, was referred to the applicant for comments related to the aforementioned Article 15 and several other infractions. On 31 May 11, the applicant was honorably discharged, with a narrative reason for separation of “Completion of Required Active Service,” along with a separation program designator (SPD) code of “JBK” and RE code of “2X.” He was credited with 1 year, 9 months, and 13 days of total active service. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility, which is attached at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. The applicant’s separation was due to being identified as eligible for the Air Force’s FY13 Force Shaping rollback program. His commander made a conscious decision to utilize the rollback guidance by non-selecting him for reenlistment. In accordance with AFI 36-2606, Reenlistment in the USAF, 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, and the airman’s willingness to comply with Air Force standards and/or the airman’s ability (or lack thereof) to meet required training and duty performance levels. Based on the applicant’s infractions, receiving the lowest rating of an overall “1” on his EPR, and, in accordance with the FY 13 Rollback guidance, the applicant was required to separate on 31 May 11. Therefore, the RE code “2X” is consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of “First-term, second-term or career airman considered but not selected for reenlistment under the SRP.” A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 23 Sep 13 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 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 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. 4.  The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. ________________________________________________________________ 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-2013-03451 in Executive Session on 20 May 14, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 9 Aug 13. Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 23 Sep 13. Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Nov 13. 3 4