RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-04788 XXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Reentry (RE) code of 2X, which denotes “First Term, Second Term, or Career Airman nonselected for reenlistment” be changed to 4D, which denotes “Grade is SrA/E-4, completed at least 7 years TAFMS, but fewer than 16 years TAFMS and has not been selected for promotion to SSgt/E-5; or Grade is SSgt/E-5, completed at least 14 years TAFMS, but fewer than 16 years TAFMS and has not been selected for promotion to TSgt/E-6,” to allow him to enlist in the Air National Guard (ANG). APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was separated due to the Air Force High Year of Tenure (HYT) policy; therefore, his RE code should be 4D as specified on his AF Form 100, Request and Authorization for Separation. His RE code prevents him from joining the ANG. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 1 November 2006, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force. In accordance with AFI 36-2606, Reenlistments in the United States Air Force, the HYT date is the maximum date an airman may remain on active duty, based on grade and years of service, as determined by the Secretary of the Air Force. Air Force policy changes that went into effect in calendar year 2013 reduced the HYT for senior airman (E-4), from 10 years to 8 years. According to an AF Form 418, dated 18 November 2013, the applicant was notified by his commander that he was not recommending him for reenlistment in the Air Force. The specific reason for this action was the applicant was removed from Airman Leadership School for disciplinary academic reasons. The commander further recommended the applicant’s RE code be updated to 2X. On 18 November 2013, the applicant acknowledged receipt of his non-selection for reenlistment and indicated that he would not appeal the decision. On 9 December 2013, his RE code was changed in the personnel data system from 4D to 2X. On 1 November 2014, the applicant was honorably discharged from the Air Force in the grade of senior airman with an RE Code of 2X. His narrative reason for separation and corresponding separation code is “Non-retention on Active Duty.” He was credited with eight years and one day of active duty. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. On 18 November 2013, the applicant's commander nonselected him for reenlistment via AF Form 418, Selective Reenlistment Program Consideration. The applicant acknowledged his non-selection for reenlistment and rendered his intent not to appeal the decision. His RE code was updated from 4D to 2X as “2” RE codes have the highest priority. In accordance with AFI 36-2606, paragraph 5.20.1, RE codes are updated in the following priority order: 2#, 4#, 3#, and then 1# if more than one RE code applies. AFI 36-2606, states that commanders have selective reenlistment selection or non-selection authority. The Selective Reenlistment Program considers the member’s Enlisted Performance Report ratings, unfavorable information from any substantiated source, the member's willingness to comply with Air Force standards and/or the member’s ability (or lack of) to meet required training and duty performance levels. It is clear the applicant’s commander had justification for denial of reenlistment based on information in the remarks section of the AF IMT 418. While the applicant contends he was separated under HYT policy, information from the personnel data system shows he was denied reenlistment. A complete copy of the DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 9 March 2015, 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 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 the rationale expressed 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-2014-04788 in Executive Session on 4 August 2015, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence pertaining AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-04788 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 12 November 2014, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 12 January 2015. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 March 2015.