RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-03717 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. His separation code of “LBK” (Expiration of Term of Service) be changed due to inconsistencies in his military personnel records. 2. His Reentry (RE) code of 2X (First-term, second-term or career airman considered but not selected for reenlistment under the Selective Re-enlistment Program (SRP)) be changed to allow him to reenter the military. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His separation code is inconsistent with other documentation in his records and his RE code is inequitable due to it being based on a single incident over his nine year career with no opportunity to rehabilitate. In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of his AF IMT 100, Request and Authorization for Separation; Personal Data Sheet, and DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge From Active Duty. 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 20 Jan 04. On 25 Feb 13, the applicant’s supervisor non-recommended him for reenlistment and on the same date, the applicant’s commander non-selected him for reenlistment. In doing so, the commander indicated the applicant was not selected for retention under the 2013 Date of Separation (DOS) Rollback Program for receiving an Article 15 for a false official statement. On 25 Feb 13, the applicant acknowledged receipt and on the same date, rendered an intent to appeal the commander’s decision. The applicant had until 7 Mar 13 to submit his appeal but failed to do so by the required date. On 30 Apr 13, the applicant was issued an AF IMT 100, Request and Authorization for Separation, that indicates his separation code as “LBK” and RE code as “2X.” On 16 Jun 13, the applicant was furnished an honorable discharge with a narrative reason for separation of “Non-Retention On Active Duty,” RE code of “2X,” and issued a separation code of “LGH” (Failure to meet minimum standards of service). He was credited with 9 years, 4 months, and 27 days of total active service. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial of the applicant’s request to change his separation code, indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. There was no error in the preparation of the applicant’s DD Form 214 and the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the Secretary of the Air Force (SECAF) Memorandum Fiscal Year 2013 (FY13) Force Management Program and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. The applicant’s separation order and the military personnel data system will be administratively corrected to reflect the separation code of “LGH.” Both currently reflect the incorrect separation code of “LBK.” The applicant did not provide any evidence of an error or injustice that occurred in the separation processing. A complete copy of the DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial of the applicant’s request to change his RE code. The applicant has not provided any proof of an error or injustice in reference to his RE code and his non- selection for reenlistment was in accordance with current guidance. His non-selection for re-enlistment was carried out in accordance with AFI 36-2606, Reenlistment in the USAF, which indicates that commanders have selective reenlistment or non- selection authority. The SRP considers the member’s 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 was non-selected for reenlistment based on his own actions. Although his Article 15 is cited, there is no other way of knowing what other derogatory information may have been in his personnel record. A complete copy of the DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 31 Jan 14 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit E). ________________________________________________________________ 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 opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their 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-2013-03717 in Executive Session on 15 May 14, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member Although chaired the panel, in view of her unavailability, has signed as Acting Panel Chair. The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 26 Jul 13, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 3 Dec 13. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 17 Jan 14. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 31 Jan 14.