RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02189 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Her discharge was voluntary, as a part of the Date of Service (DOS) Rollback, and not due to disciplinary reasons. She received an Article 15 while on deployment and was not given the opportunity for rebuttal. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 25 Mar 08, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force. On 24 Nov 10, she received an Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for making derogatory comments. She acknowledged receipt the same day indicating she consulted counsel, waived her right to court-martial, requested a personal appearance and submitted a written statement. On 26 Nov 10, the applicant indicated she would not appeal the Article 15. On 21 Dec 10, her squadron commander gave her a “1 - poor” Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) stating the applicant received NJP for making derogatory comments, does not meet minimum fitness standards and requires constant supervision. The rater’s comments state “Member elected not to provide comments to the referral memo dated 24 Nov 2010.” On 18 Feb 11, the applicant’s squadron commander did not select her for reenlistment stating she had received an Article 15 for drawing a sexual innuendo picture and swastika on a T-Wall while deployed in a combat zone, received two Letters of Counseling (LOCs) and one Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for failure to obey orders, failed initial weapons knowledge testing impacting flight capabilities, failed to maintain minimum physical fitness standards and received an overall rating of 1 on her EPR. On 22 Feb 11, she acknowledged receipt initialing she did not intend to appeal the decision. On 18 Apr 11, her squadron commander submitted a memorandum to deny the applicant’s good conduct medal (GCM) due to the NJP. On 31 May 11, the applicant received an honorable discharge. She was credited with 3 years, 2 months and 6 days of active service. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial indicating the RE code 2X, meaning 1st term, 2nd term or career airman considered but not selected for reenlistment, is correct. The applicant was discharged under the FY11 AF Force Shaping Rollback Program. Her commander non-selected her for reenlistment on an AF IMT 418, Selective Reenlistment Program Consideration, which she acknowledged. Her RE code was updated to 2X based on her non-selection for reenlistment. The applicant stated she had a derogatory mark on her record explaining why she received an Article 15 NJP, and goes on to state “at the time I was not given the opportunity to write a rebuttal.” However, she initialed the “I do not appeal” block during her Article 15 processing on 26 Nov 10 choosing not to mark the “I appeal and submit matters in writing” block. She further states her discharge was not due to disciplinary reasons, however; she was involuntarily discharged under the Rollback due to denial of reenlistment which was based on a pattern of disciplinary issues to include the Article 15, two LOCs and an LOR for failure to obey orders and she failed to maintain minimum Physical Fitness Standards during the ’09-’10 rating period. Additionally, the applicant had the following two statements on her last performance report, “requires constant supervision,” and “not ready for promotion.” AFI 36-2606, Reenlistment in the USAF, states commanders have selective reenlistment selection or non-selection authority. The Selective Reenlistment Program (SRP) considers the members 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 states she was given an opportunity to separate voluntarily as part of the Rollback program. However, she was non-selected for reenlistment and could not have stayed in the Air Force if she wanted to. She would have had to separate on her Date of Separation if she was not involuntarily discharged under the FY11 Rollback in which members were mandatorily separated not later than 31 May 11. The complete 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 10 Oct 14 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). As of this date, no response has been received by this office. 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 (OPR) 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-02189 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 9 Jan 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 25 Jun 14. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Oct 14.