RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-02275 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ 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 Reenlistment Program (SRP)) on his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be changed. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: A personality conflict ultimately led to the decision to discharge him, and the incidents in question did not warrant an RE code of 2X. He accomplished a lot in his career, and doesn’t think his momentary lapses, which he takes full responsibility for, should outweigh all the work he did. His RE code will cause future employers to question his reliability. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially joined the Regular Air Force on 1 May 07. On 19 Mar 12, the applicant received an LOC for failing an annual fitness assessment (FA). On 23 Aug 12, the applicant received an LOC for failing to follow orders. He failed to write up an aircraft discrepancy after it was identified to him. On 11 Dec 12, the applicant was detained by civilian law enforcement for public intoxication, and was released to his First Sergeant. On 23 Jan 13, the applicant received an LOC for reporting to a military appointment in civilian clothing, resulting in a missed appointment. On 18 Feb 13, the applicant received a Letter of Counseling (LOC) for failing an annual FA. On 25 Mar 13, the applicant’s supervisor chose not to recommend him for reenlistment, and his commander did not select him for reenlistment. The applicant acknowledged receipt, and chose not to appeal this decision. On 30 Apr 13, the applicant was furnished an honorable discharge with a narrative reason for separation of “completion of required active service,” an RE Code of 2X, and was credited with six years of active service. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained 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’s denial of reenlistment leading to his RE code of 2X was the result of his own decisions and actions, not because of a personality conflict. The applicant received four Letters of Reprimand (LOR) and was also detained by civilian law enforcement for public intoxication and then released to his First Sergeant. AFI 36-2606, Reenlistment in the USAF, states commanders have selective reenlistment selection or non-selection authority. On 25 Mar 13, the applicant’s commander non-selected him for reenlistment on an AF IMT 418, Selective Reenlistment Program Consideration. Although the applicant had the opportunity to appeal his denial of reenlistment at the time the decision was made, he chose not to and initialed that “I do not intend to appeal this decision.” The applicant does not provide any proof of an error or injustice in reference to his RE code. 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 5 Aug 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. ________________________________________________________________ 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-2013-02275 in Executive Session on 6 Mar 14, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 10 May 13, w/atch. Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 20 Jun 13. Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Aug 13. Panel Chair