RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-05961 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Reentry (RE) code of “2X” (Career airman considered but not selected for reenlistment under the Selective Reenlistment Program), as reflected on his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be changed to allow him to reenlist in the Air Force Reserve or Air National Guard. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He received an honorable discharge for completion of required service, but the RE Code of 2X unjustly restricts him from reenlisting. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 9 Oct 01. On 23 Jan 04, the applicant received a referral AF Form 910, Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), covering the period 9 Jun 03 through 11 Jan 04; the report was referred due to comments related to unacceptable conduct on/off duty and for being charged with driving under the influence of alcohol. On 31 Mar 11, the applicant’s commander issued him non-judicial punishment (Article 15) under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for being absent from his place of duty without authority. On 2 Feb 12, the applicant received a referral EPR covering the period 12 Jan 11 through 11 Jan 12; the report was referred for the following comment: “failing to return from leave on schedule, absent without authority, received Article 15, violation of Article 86.” On 7 May 12, the applicant’s commander chose not to select him for reenlistment, annotating the AF Form 418, Selective Reenlistment Program (SRP) Consideration for Airmen in the Regular Air Force/Air Force Reserve, with comments which include: “has a long history of documented disciplinary infractions…all infractions are incompatible with our Air Force Core Values and reflect poorly on the NCO Corps.” On 29 Sep 12, the applicant was honorably discharged at the completion of his required active service, issued an RE code of 2X, and credited with 10 years, 11 months, and 21 days of total 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. The applicant was discharged under the Air Force’s FY12 Force Shaping Rollback Program with an honorable characterization of service and severance pay. 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 commander made a conscious decision to separate the applicant under the Rollback guidance by non-selecting him for reenlistment. He received the appropriate RE code of 2X. Most members who receive an RE code of 2X also receive an honorable character of service. The applicant acknowledged his non-selection and annotated he did not intend to appeal. He did not provide any evidence of an error or injustice. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOA evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 24 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-2012-05961 in Executive Session on 31 Oct 13, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-05961 was considered: Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 19 Dec 12, w/atch. Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 13 Feb 13, w/atch. Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 Feb 13. Panel Chair