RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-04879 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Reentry (RE) code “2X” (First-term, second-term or career airman considered but not selected for reenlistment under the Selective Reenlistment Program (SRP)) be changed to a “1” series. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He fulfilled his service contract; however, the differences within his chain of command resulted in an unjust RE Code and would like it corrected. He admits to falling behind on his Star Card account for which he received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) and Unfavorable Information File (UIF). The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 10 Jun 2008. On 9 Feb 10, the applicant received a Referral Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) for a “Does Not Meet” in Section III, Block 2, Standards, Conduct, Character & Military Bearing. The reason listed was “Irregular work ethic; received LOR for being late to duty 4 times/LOR from Flight Chief for missed appointment”. On 17 Feb 10, the applicant submitted a response to the Referral EPR. On 22 Feb 10, the applicant’s additional rater carefully considered his response and the applicant received an overall “3 - Average” rating. On 9 Feb 11, the applicant received a Referral EPR for a “Does Not Meet” in Section III, Block 2, Standards, Conduct, Character & Military Bearing. The reason listed was “Untruthful behavior; chooses not to follow standards—received LOR for lying about dorm room inspection/having dog in room”. The applicant elected not to provide comments to the referral. The applicant received an overall “2 – Needs Improvement” rating. On 22 Feb 11, the applicant received a LOR for failing to pay just debts. The applicant submitted a statement on his behalf apologizing for his financial negligence and agreed to keep better track of his financial responsibilities. On 1 Mar 11, the applicant’s supervisor and commander non- recommended him for reenlistment under the Selective Reenlistment Program (SRP) for constantly failing to adhere to Air Force standards and behavior. The applicant acknowledged receipt on the same day. On 4 Mar 11, the applicant notified his commander he did not intent to appeal the decision. On 31 May 11, the applicant was furnished an honorable discharge, and was credited with 2 years, 11 months, and 21 days of active service. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum 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 an injustice. The applicant was discharged on 31 May 11 under the Fiscal Year 2011 Air Force - Force Shaping Rollback Program. The applicant’s RE Code was updated to “2X” based on his non- selection for reenlistment. AFI 36-2606, Reenlistment in the United States Air Force, states commanders have the selective reenlistment selection or non- selection authority. The SRP considers the applicant’s Enlisted Performance Report(EPR) ratings, unfavorable information from any substantiated source, the airman’s willingness to comply with the Air Force’s standards and/or the airman’s ability (or lack of) to meet required training and duty performance levels. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: He contends that although he was not a perfect Airman, he was singled out and treated unfairly. He acknowledged he did not appeal his non-selection for reenlistment. His decision was based on fear of repercussion from his superiors. His only documented infraction was an instance of financial irresponsibility. He does not feel that his forced separation was justified and his RE Code of “2X” is unfair. The only thing he wishes to gain from changing this code is the opportunity to reenlist into the armed forces. 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, to include his rebuttal comments, 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 requested 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-2013-04879 in Executive Session on 21 Nov 14 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 27 Feb 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 21 Apr 14. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Sep 14. Exhibit E. Applicant’s letter, dated 4 Oct 14.