ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-04378

		COUNSEL:  

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES


________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Reentry (RE) code of 2X (First-term, second-term or career 
airman considered but not selected for reenlistment under the 
Selective Re-enlistment Program (SRP)) be changed.

________________________________________________________________

RESUME OF CASE:

On 23 May 13, the Board considered and denied the applicant’s 
request to change his RE code of 2X (First-term, second-term or 
career airman considered but not selected for reenlistment under 
the Selective Re-enlistment Program (SRP)) to a code that would 
allow him to be appointed an officer.  After a thorough review 
of the evidence of record and the applicant’s complete 
submission, the Board did not find Counsel’s arguments or the 
documentation presented sufficient to conclude that the 
commander’s decision to deny the applicant re-enlistment lacked 
a sufficient basis.  While Counsel argued the command’s use of 
derogatory information from prior to the applicant’s most recent 
satisfactory enlisted performance report (EPR) was 
“chronologically dishonest,” the Board concluded the commander 
acted within his authority and appropriately relied on 
derogatory information from any source when he denied the 
applicant’s re-enlistment.  Ultimately, the Board was not 
convinced the basis for the action was somehow faulty and was 
not compelled to substitute its judgment for that of the 
commander.  For an accounting of the facts and circumstances 
surrounding the applicant’s request, and the rationale of the 
earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings at 
Exhibit F.

By virtue of a letter, dated 22 Jun 13, Counsel requests 
reconsideration of the applicant’s case and argues the Board’s 
original decision was silent on the fact that the derogatory 
documents described in the applicant’s 7 April 2010 EPR, which 
were relied upon by the commander in deciding to deny the 
applicant re-enlistment, are missing from the applicant’s 
records.  Counsel argues the fact these documents are missing is 
evidence of an error or injustice and requests that the Board 
address the total absence of any of the derogatory information 
referenced in the applicant’s 7 April 2010 EPR and how the 
absence of such is not "proof of and error or injustice."

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit G.

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

After again reviewing this application and the evidence provided 
in support of his appeal, we remain unconvinced the applicant 
has been a victim of an error or injustice.  Counsel argues that 
the absence of the documents noted in the commander’s decision 
to deny the applicant re-enlistment constitutes an error or 
injustice.  We disagree.  Counsel is reminded that the burden of 
proof of an error or injustice rests with the applicant and the 
mere fact that the applicant’s record does not contain certain 
records is not proof of the existence of an error or injustice.  
In this respect, we note that the presumption of regularity 
dictates that, absent evidence to the contrary, we must presume 
that responsible officials carried out their duties in good 
faith and within the limits of the authority conveyed to them.  
Consequently, because both the applicant’s EPR and the AF Form 
418 describe the fact the applicant received letters of 
reprimand and a no contact order, we must presume these 
documents were a matter of record when the EPR was written and 
formed a sufficient basis for its referral and the commander’s 
decision to deny the applicant re-enlistment even though these 
documents are not present in the applicant’s records today.  
Therefore, after a thorough review of the totality of the 
evidence, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief 
sought in this application.

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; 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-2012-04378 in Executive Session on 17 Apr 14, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                       , Panel Chair
                       , Member
                       , Member
The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2012-04378 was considered:

    Exhibit F.  Record of Proceedings, dated 6 Jun 13, w/atchs.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant’s Counsel, dated 22 Jun 13.




                                   
                                   Panel Chair