RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01103 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code 2X, which denotes “1st term, 2nd term or career airman considered but not selected for reenlistment,” be changed. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was forced out under the Date of Separation (DOS) Rollback program. It was not optional for him. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 3 Jun 08, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force. On 11 Nov 11, his supervisor notified him he was referring his Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) for the period 11 Nov 10-10 Nov 11, per AFI 36-2406, Military Performance Evaluations, paragraph 3.9., for failing to meet minimum fitness standards. He acknowledged receipt that day indicating he did not intend to provide comments. On 23 May 12, his supervisor signed the AF IMT 418, Selective Reenlistment Program (SRP) Consideration for Airmen in the Regular Air Force/Air Force Reserve, indicating he was not recommending him for reenlistment due to his duty performance and multiple disciplinary issues. The applicant acknowledged it the same day. On 14 May 12, his supervisor presented him with an AF IMT 1058, Unfavorable Information File Action, notifying him that he intended to place him on the control roster for his duty performance and multiple disciplinary issues. Attachments to the form were two Letters of Counseling (LOCs), dated 30 May 11 and 4 Jan 12; and one Letter of Reprimand (LOR), dated 27 Sep 10. On 17 May 12, he acknowledged the notification of the UIF indicating he did not intend to submit a written statement. On 18 May 12, his supervisor decided to place him on the control roster. On 30 May 12, he indicated he did not intend to appeal the decision. Section V of the AF Form 418, indicated the applicant’s reenlistment eligibility code should be updated from 4I denoting “serving on control roster” to 2X. On 29 Sep 12, the applicant received an honorable discharge. He was credited with 4 years, 3 months and 27 days of active service. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial. The RE code received is correct. The applicant was discharged on 29 Sep 12 under the FY12 AF Force Shaping Rollback Program. AFI 36-2606, Reenlistment in the United States Air Force, states commanders have selective reenlistment selection or non-selection authority. The SRP considers the member’s EPR ratings, UIF 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 does not try to provide any proof of an error or injustice in reference to his RE code, but states he was discharged with an honorable character of service. Per the applicant’s AF IMT 1058, section II, block 8 (that was attached to his AF Form 418,the applicant had two LOCs and an LOR. The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: He is not arguing the validity of the code but wants an opportunity to prove himself in the Air Force. He is now more responsible. He was not using the core values, “Integrity first, Service before self and Excellence in all I do.” He realizes these are only words and wants the chance to prove he can be an outstanding airman. 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 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 of injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief. 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 documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-01103 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 10 Mar 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 11 Apr 14. Exhibit D. Applicant’s response, undated.