RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-00175 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reenlistment (RE) code of 2X (first-term, second-term, or career airman considered but not selected for reenlistment under the Selective Reenlistment Program (SRP)) be changed to an RE code which will allow him to reenlist. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: At the time of his discharge, he was going through a lot of mental problems and was seeking help at the mental health clinic. Although he failed four consecutive fitness assessments (FA), he passed his final FA after his commander had completed the paperwork for his discharge. He can be of further service to the country if given a chance. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Air Force on 5 Feb 02. On 30 Jun 10, the applicant failed to achieve a satisfactory score on an FA. On 9 Aug 10, the applicant’s supervisor referred his Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) covering the period 2 Jul 09 through 1 Jul 10 to him because Block 3 of the EPR, “Fitness,” was marked “does not meet,” and included the comment “member failed to meet minimum fitness standards.” On 14 Sep 10 and again on 8 Jun 11, the applicant failed to achieve satisfactory scores during his FAs. On 1 Jul 11, the applicant’s supervisor referred his Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) covering the period 2 Jul 10 through 1 Jul 11 to him because Block 3 of the EPR, “Fitness,” was marked “does not meet,” and included the comment “member failed to meet minimum fitness standards.” On 6 Sep 11, the applicant failed to achieve a satisfactory score during another FA. On 28 Nov 11, the applicant’s supervisor did not recommend him for reenlistment due to multiple FA failures in a 24 month period. The applicant’s commander concurred, and on 30 Nov 11, did not select him for reenlistment. On 14 Dec 11, the applicant achieved a satisfactory score on an FA, obtaining an overall composite score of 79.80. On 31 Mar 12, the applicant was honorably discharged from active duty with a Narrative Reason for Separation of ”completion of required active service,” an RE code of “2X,” and was credited with 10 years, 1 month, and 26 days of active service. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility, 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 under the Air Force Fiscal Year 2012 (FY12) Force Shaping Rollback Program. AFI 36-2606, Reenlistment in the USAF, states commanders have selective reenlistment selection or non-selection authority. The SRP considers the member’s Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) ratings, unfavorable information from any substantiated source, the Airman’s willingness to comply with Air Force standards and/or ability (or lack of) to meet required training and duty performance levels. The applicant’s supervisor did not recommend the applicant for reenlistment, and his commander made a conscious decision to force him to separate by non-selecting him reenlistment. The applicant received the appropriate RE code of 2X. Although the applicant passed his last FA, the commander’s decision to non-select him for reenlistment was authorized for his multiple FA failures. The applicant did not provide any evidence of an error or injustice. 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 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. Based on the available evidence of record, it appears the discharge was consistent with the substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and within the commander's discretionary authority. 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-2013-00175 in Executive Session on 12 Nov 13, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-00175 was considered: Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 28 Dec 12, w/atch. Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 13 Feb 13. Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 Feb 13. Panel Chair