RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-05829 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Reentry (RE) code of 2X, which denotes "1st term, 2nd term or career airman considered but not selected for reenlistment under the Selective Reenlistment Program (SRP)," be changed to allow him reentry into the Air Force. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He realizes that there was no error or injustice in the processing of his discharge. During his service in the Air Force, he was cited for Driving Under the Influence (DUI) and placed on the roll back list, which led to his honorable discharge. While he is grateful for the service characterization, he wants to serve his country and the RE code prevents him from doing so. He implores the Board to consider his request. The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 14 July 2009, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force. On 9 February 2012, the applicant’s commander notified him that she was recommending he be demoted to the grade of airman (E-2) under the provisions of AFI 36-2502, Airman Promotion/Demotion Programs. The specific reasons for this action was that on or about 4 June 2011, he was arrested for DUI and drinking alcohol under the age of 21. On 9 February 2012, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the demotion notification and on 14 February 2012, he concurred with the proposed demotion and presented statements in his behalf. On 28 February 2012, the approval authority directed the applicant be demoted to the grade of airman with an effective date of 6 March 2012. The applicant did not appeal this decision. On 24 May 2012, via AF Form 418, Selective Reenlistment Program Consideration for Airmen in the Regular Air Force/Air Force Reserve, the applicant was notified by his commander that she was not recommending him for reenlistment in the Air Force. Her reason for this action was the applicant’s conduct did not meet the standards expected of an airman in the United States Air Force. On 29 May 2012, the applicant acknowledged receipt of his non- selection for reenlistment and indicated that he did intend to appeal this decision; however, no appeal was annotated on the AF Form 418. On 19 June 2012, the applicant was offered an Article 15 because he violated a lawful general order, to wit: “General Order Prohibiting the Use and Possession of Salvia, Spice, and Bath Salts,” by wrongfully possessing and smoking a botanical incense or herbal mixture commonly known as Spice. He also violated Article 112, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), by wrongfully using marijuana. On 25 June 2012, the applicant received punishment under Article 15, in the form of a reprimand and demotion to the grade of airman basic (E-1), with an effective date of 25 June 2012. On 29 September 2012, the applicant was honorably discharged from the Air Force in the grade of airman basic (E-1), with a RE Code of 2X. His narrative reason for separation was “Completion of Required Active Service.” AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial. The applicant did not provide any evidence of an error or injustice that occurred in the discharge processing. He was separated under the Fiscal Year 2012 Air Force Shaping Rollback Program. According to AFI 36-2606, Reenlistment in the United States Air Force, commanders have selective reenlistment selection or non-selection authority. The commander considers the airman’s performance reports, unfavorable information from any substantiated source, the airman’s willingness to comply with Air Force standards and/or the airman’s ability to meet required training and duty performance levels. The applicant’s discharge was correctly administered on the basis of his RE code of 2X. The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 17 February 2014, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant 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 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 issue(s) involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. 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 BC-2013-05829 in Executive Session on 12 November 2014, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member Due to the unavailability of XXXXXXXXXX, XXXXXXXXXX will sign as Acting Panel Chair. The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR BC-2013-05829 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 18 November 2013. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 27 January 2014. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 February 2014.