RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03718 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reentry (RE) code of 2X (1st Term, 2nd Term, or career airman considered but not selected for reenlistment) be changed so he can reenter the military. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Since his separation he has changed, and now he is prepared and disciplined enough to serve his country. He deserved the two Article 15s he received during his period of service—one for making a racist comment and the other for falling asleep on duty. However, he agrees completely with the zero tolerance policy for that type of behavior, and his body now has the discipline it needs to stay awake. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 17 Mar 09. On 2 May 11, the applicant’s commander punished him through non-judicial punishment under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The reason for this action was on or about 15 Apr 11, he wrongfully used reproachful words, to wit: “I bet you speak monkey. You look like a monkey” or words to that effect to a fellow Airman. For this he was reduced in grade to Airman (suspended through 1 Nov 11), forfeited $250.00 pay per month for two months, and was reprimanded. On 27 Jul 11, the applicant’s commander punished him through non-judicial punishment under Article 15 of the UCMJ. The reason for this action was or about 15 Jun 11, he was derelict in the performance of his duties in that he negligently failed to stay awake during his assigned duty hours, as it was his duty to do. For this he received 21 days of extra duty, was reduced in grade to airman basic (suspended through 26 Jan 12), and was reprimanded. On 14 Nov 11, the applicant’s commander did not select him for reenlistment under the Fiscal Year 2012 Date of Separation Rollback Program. The applicant did not appeal this decision. On 31 Mar 12, the applicant was furnished an honorable discharge, an RE code of 2X, and was credited with 3 years 14 days of active service. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. 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 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 does not provide any proof of an error or injustice in reference to his RE code. The applicant’s commander chose not to select him for reenlistment, and the applicant chose not to appeal his non-selection. The RE code 2X is correct based his non-selection. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOA evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 17 Nov 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 AFPC/DPSOA 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 members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-03718 in Executive Session on 11 Jun 15 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 8 Sep 14, w/atch. Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 15 Oct 14, w/atchs. Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Nov 14.