RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS. IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-00938 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed to allow reenlistment in the Air Force. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: In 2009, he was Court-Martialed after pleading guilty for distributing a pain pill to a fellow airman. Based on AFI 36- 3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, a mandatory discharge or waiver of discharge should have been initiated, but was not and he continued his service. In 2011, he received orders to Permanently Change Station (PCS) and was required to reenlist in order to accept. He carried an RE code of “4E” at the time and should have been barred from reenlistment, but instead his squadron commander allowed him to extend service. In 2013, he completed Airman Leadership School (ALS) allowing him to test and qualify for promotion to Senior Airman (SrA)/E-4 in 2014. Later that year when he requested reenlistment, his squadron commander reviewed his records and found he should have been discharged after his Court-Martial. In November 2014, an Administrative Separation Board found he had met all retention criteria and should have been allowed to remain in the Service. Though his Wing Commander acknowledged the result, he was served with a denial of reenlistment in December 2014. His appeal to the Group Commander was denied. There are several factors to consider when looking at his situation. One, had he not passed the Weighted Airman Promotion exam and been selected for promotion, he would have never been eligible for reenlistment under High Year Tenure (HYT) rules. He would have separated and possibly been entitled to further benefits, so the promotion in the long run may have hurt him. Two, the short-notice nature of his separation did not allow him to complete the mandatory DD Form 2958, Service Member’s Individual Transition Plan Checklist, prior to separation. Third, in the second response from his Senator’s inquiry, erroneous information was provided. It stated that at the separation Board, he was recommended for retention “despite not meeting the requirements for waiver outlined in the instruction.” This information is incorrect because he was found to have met all criteria for retention, as evidenced in the Board’s findings. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 20 Mar 07, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force. On Dec 14, according to AF Form 418, Selective Reenlistment Program (SRP) Consideration for Airmen in the Regular Air Force/Air Force Reserve, his commander non-selected him for reenlistment. He acknowledged his receipt and indicated his intent to appeal the same day. On 13 Jan 15, his appeal was denied. He acknowledged receipt on 14 Jan 15. On 19 Feb 15, the applicant was released from active duty due to non-retention on active duty. He served 7 years and 11 months 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 the applicant did not provide any proof of an error or injustice in reference to his RE code. 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 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. It is clear the applicant’s commander had justification for denial based on the applicant’s distribution of drugs, which is not compatible with military service. The applicant contends the “administrative separation board” found him to meet all retention criteria. However, the Board’s objective was to determine if the applicant should be involuntarily separated retroactive back to 2009 (approximately 5 years earlier) on his current enlistment. The Board did not select him or entitle him for continued service, but determined he should not receive a retroactive involuntary discharge. The administrative separation board decision did not negate the commander’s responsibility or authority to select or non-select the applicant for continued service after his current enlistment. The Board’s decision was under a program or process, while the commander’s decision was under a completely different program. 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 31 Jul 15 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, including attachments, in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force OPR and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice. While we acknowledge the applicant’s request to change his RE code, and the outcome of the Administrative Separation Board, we do not believe he has demonstrated evidence of an injustice, as compared to others in his similar situation. 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-2015-00938 in Executive Session on 27 Oct 15 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member By a majority vote, the Board voted to deny the application. ---------- voted to correct the record but does not desire to submit a Minority Report. The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 15 Mar 15, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 16 Jul 15. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 31 Jul 15.