RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-01217 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. Her reentry (RE) code of 2X (1st term, 2nd term orcareer airman considered but not selected for reenlistment) bechanged to a “1” code (waiverable). 2. Her separation code of JBK (completion of requiredservice) be changed. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She received an honorable discharge. Her RE and separation codesare unjust because she was discharged due to the Force ShapingProgram and not an unfavorable act. In support of her request, the applicant submits a copy of her DDForm 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Dutyand a letter of recommendation. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is atExhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 26 Feb 08, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force. On 19 Dec 09, she received an Article 15 for being derelict inthe performance of her duties in that she willfully failed towear her Individual Body Armor while on duty. For this offense, she was reduced to the grade of airman (suspended) and ordered toforfeit $824.00 per month (reduced to $250.00) for 2 months andreprimanded. On 25 Mar 10, her commander non-selected her for reenlistment dueto Article 15 action. On 30 Jun 10, she was honorably dischargedfor completion of required active service. She served two years, four months and five days on active duty. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial of the applicant’s request to changeher narrative reason for separation. DPSOS notes the applicantwas selected for the Date of Separation (DOS) Rollback Program byher commander for Article 15 punishment. The DOS rollback program utilizes the Separation Program Designation (SPD) codeJBK (less than 6 years of active service) with a correspondingnarrative reason for separation of “Completion of Required ActiveService” because the member is denied further continuation or reenlistment and as in the applicant’s case, the DOS/ExpirationTerm of Service may be involuntarily accelerated. The involuntary SPD code of JBK relieved members of recoupmentobligation for unserved portions of bonuses since the member’sterm of service was involuntarily accelerated. DPSOS states the applicant’s discharge was correctly administeredbased upon her RE code of 2X (denied reenlistment). DPSOS declares no errors or injustices in the processing of thedischarge action were found. Based on the documentation on file in the master personnel record, the discharge to include thecharacterization of service was consistent with the proceduraland substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and waswithin the discretion of the discharge authority. In addition, the applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errorsor injustices that occurred in the discharge process. The complete DPSOS evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C. DPSOA recommends denial of her request to change her RE code. DPSOA states commanders have selective reenlistment selection authority. The Selective Reenlistment Program (SRP) considersthe members Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) ratings, Unfavorable Information from any substantiated source, the airman’s willingness to comply with Air Force standards and/orthe airman’s ability (or lack of) to meet required training andduty performance levels. DPSOA notes the applicant did notprovide any proof of an error or injustice in reference to her REcode and she did not appeal the decision. DPSOA notes the applicant’s commander provided a memorandumstating the applicant would have been able to stay in the serviceif it were not for the Force Shaping program and he recommendedher for enlistment in the Army; however, he subsequently nonselected her for reenlistment and stated that “she should not serve in the Air Force in any capacity, active duty, reserves orAir National Guard.” He also took specific action to separateher under the Rollback program. She was only identified aseligible to be separated under the Rollback because she wasserving an Article 15 suspended punishment. If her commander wanted her retained, he would not have taken any action and shewould have continued on active duty. The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicanton 17 Jul 12, for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, this office has received no response (Exhibit E). THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existinglaw or regulations. 2. The application was timely filed. 3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice. We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits ofthe case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendationsof the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopttheir rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find nobasis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did notdemonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; thatthe application was denied without a personal appearance; andthat the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not consideredwith this application. The following members of the Board considered this application inExecutive Session on 5 Feb 13, under the provisions of AFI 362603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC2012- 01217: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 16 Feb 12, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 8 May 12, w/atchs. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 29 Jun 12. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Jul 12. Panel Chair