RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03965 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

______________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

1. His separation code of JBK, which denotes “Completion of 
Required Active Service; Denied Reenlistment with half Separation 
Pay,” be changed. 

 

2. His Reentry (RE) code of 2X, which denotes "1st term, 2nd 
term or career airman considered but not selected for 
reenlistment under the selective reenlistment program (SRP)," be 
changed to allow his reentry into the Air National Guard. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He was not informed of his reason for early separation and was 
under the impression it was due to down-sizing or re-
organization of his career field. 

 

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

On 7 Jan 1992, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force. 

 

On 17 Jul 1995, the applicant was notified by his commander that 
he was not recommending him for reenlistment in the Air Force. 
His reason for this action was the applicant had a history of 
marginal performance. 

 

On 27 Jul 1995, the applicant acknowledged receipt of his non-
selection for reenlistment and stated that he did not intend to 
appeal this decision. 

 

On 27 Oct 1995, the applicant was honorably discharged. His 
narrative reason for separation was “Completion of Required 
Active Service.” 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

 

THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 


AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial of the applicant’s request to 
change his separation code. DPSOR states that the applicant did 
not provide any evidence of an error or injustice that occurred 
in the discharge processing. Based on the documentation on file 
in the master personnel records, the discharge to include his 
separation code was consistent with the procedural and 
substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was 
within the discretion of the discharge authority. The applicant 
states that he was not informed of the reason for his 
separation; however, on 27 Jul 1995, he signed AF Form 418, 
stating that he acknowledged receipt of the official 
notification of non-selection for reenlistment. 

 

The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial of the applicant’s request to 
change his RE code. DPSOA states that in accordance with AFI 
36-2606, Reenlistment in the USAF, commanders have selective 
reenlistment selection or non-selection authority. The 
Selective Reenlistment Program considers the member’s Enlisted 
Performance Report 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 was discharged after his commander made a conscious 
decision by non-selecting him for reenlistment. He did not 
appeal the decision and did not provide any evidence of an error 
or injustice that would warrant a change of his RE code. 

 

The complete DPSOA evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit D. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

On 10 Dec 2012, copies of the Air Force evaluations were 
forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 
30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this 
office (Exhibit E). 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

 

1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by 
existing law or regulations. 

 

2. The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the 
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file. 

 

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 of 
the case; however, we agree with the opinions and 


recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary 
responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our 
conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or 
injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the 
contrary, 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; that 
the application was denied without a personal appearance; and 
that 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 Docket Number BC-
2012-03965 in Executive Session on 30 May 2013, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, 28 Aug 2012. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 22 Oct 2012. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 28 Nov 2012, w/atch. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Dec 2012. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair