RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-05874 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her reentry (RE) code of 2X (1st term, 2nd term or career airman considered but not selected for reenlistment) on her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be changed. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: An RE code of 2X is inappropriate given her 13 years of committed service. Her only violation was not pulling a circuit breaker, for which she received an Article 15 (non-judicial punishment). Discharging her for that was unjust. The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Air Force on 9 Sep 98. On 29 Mar 10, the applicant’s rater notified her he was referring her Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) covering the period 30 Mar 09 through 29 Mar 10 due to his comment in the EPR stating “Member failed to meet minimum physical fitness standards,” and due to a “Does Not Meet” rating in Block 3 (Fitness) The overall performance assessment was a “4.” On 11 Apr 11, the applicant’s additional rater notified her he was referring her EPR covering the period 30 Mar 10 through 29 Mar 11 due to two comments in the EPR: “Member failed to follow technical order” and “Member failed to meet minimum physical fitness standards.” Block 2 (Standards, conduct, character, and military bearing) and Block 3 (Fitness) of the EPR were both marked “Does not meet standards.” The overall performance assessment was a “2.” On 15 Nov 11, the applicant’s supervisor elected not to recommend her for reenlistment, and her commander concurred with that assessment. On 31 Mar 12, the applicant was honorably discharged with an RE code of 2X, a narrative reason for separation of “completion of required active service,” and was credited with 13 years, 6 months, and 22 days of active service. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letter 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 injustice. In accordance with AFI 36-2606, Reenlistment in the USAF, commanders have selective reenlistment selection or non-selection authority. The Selective Reenlistment Program (SRP) considers the member’s 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’s supervisor recommended her for separation under the Air Force FY12 Force Shaping Rollback Program, and her commander concurred. Her AF IMT 418, Selective Reenlistment Program Consideration, indicates her non-selection for reenlistment was for multiple physical fitness failures and for not meeting standards. She did not appeal the action, nor has she provided any evidence of an error or injustice. A complete copy of the AFPC/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 17 Feb 13 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 (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 relief sought in this application. 4. The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. ________________________________________________________________ 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-2012-05874 in Executive Session on 22 Oct 13, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 Dec 12. Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 6 Feb 13. Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Feb 13. Panel Chair