RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-05025
		COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  NO 



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her Reentry (RE) code of 4I (Serving on Control Roster) be changed to allow her to reenter the military.



APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

When she was discharged from the Air Force, the control roster action had already expired.

In support of her request, the applicant provides copies of her AF IMT 1058, Unfavorable Information File Action, 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:

On 9 Jan 07, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force.

According to documentation provided by the applicant, on 23 Feb 12, she was placed on the control roster for driving under the 
influence and excessive speeding.

On 30 Apr 12, the applicant’s supervisor non-recommended her for reenlistment.  On the same date, the applicant’s commander non-
selected her for reenlistment.  In doing so, the commander indicated the applicant was not selected for retention under the 
Fiscal Year 2012 Enlisted Date of Separation (DOS) Rollback Program for being on the control roster and for being 
administratively demoted.

On 4 May 12, the applicant appealed the Selective Reenlistment 
Program (SRP) decision and on 22 May 12, the Appellate Authority 
denied the applicant’s appeal.

On 29 Sep 12, the applicant received an honorable discharge, and 
was credited with 5 years, 8 months, and 21 days of active 
service.

On 4 Apr 14, AFPC/DPSOA informed the applicant that after a 
thorough review of her personnel records, they discovered that her 
RE Code of 4I was incorrect and should be 2X (First-term, second-
term or career airman considered but not selected for reenlistment 
under the SRP) based on her non-selection for reenlistment.  
AFPC/DPSOY will provide a corrected DD Form 214.


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial indicating there is no indication the 
applicant’s commander was without authority in placing the 
applicant on the control roster nor was there enough evidence to 
support changing the RE code.  During the time the applicant was 
placed on the control roster, the FY12 Enlisted DOS Rollback 
(Phase II) Program commenced.  In accordance with Field Message, 
Personnel Services Delivery Memorandum (PSDM) 12-37, FY12 Enlisted 
DOS Rollback (Phase II) Program, dated 20 Apr 12, “airmen are 
eligible if they are on a control roster, are serving suspended 
punishment under Article 15, or show lost time in the current 
enlistment.”  There is no evidence the applicant was affected by 
this program; however, based on her 29 Sep 12 DOS and the 
timeframe of the control roster, it is safe to assume the 
applicant was affected by this program.  If affected, her RE code 
should reflect 2X versus 4I.

The DPSIM evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C.



APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 18 Apr 14 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 timely filed.

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 DPSIM and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error 
of injustice.  We note that AFPC/DPSOA has determined that the applicant’s RE Code of 4I was incorrect and should be 2X based on 
her non-selection for reenlistment and AFPC/DPSOY will correct her records administratively.  Therefore, aside from the 
administrative correction noted above, we find no basis to recommend granting relief beyond that rendered administratively.

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-2013-05025 in Executive Session on 28 Aug 14, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	                     , Panel Chair
	                   , Member
	                   , Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 2 Oct 13, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Available Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 26 Feb 14, w/atch.
Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Apr 14.
2 3