RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03632 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reentry (RE) code of 2X (1st term, 2nd term or career airman considered but not selected for reenlistment) be changed to reflect the correct RE code. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His RE code is incorrect for the type of discharge he received. He is being punished with the current enlistment code. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 12 May 2004. On 20 October 2009, the applicant received non-judicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The reason for the action was failure to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty, without authority being absent from his unit, and making a false official statement. His commander imposed punishment consisting of reduced to the grade of Airman First Class (E-3) suspended through 19 April 2010, 7 days extra duty, and a Reprimand. On 21 January 2010, the applicant received a Referral Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) for comments related to the aforementioned Article 15, and failure to meet minimum fitness standards. On 31 August 2010, the applicant was furnished an honorable discharge, with a narrative reason for separation of “Completion of Required Active Service,” along with a separation program designator (SPD) code of “LBK” and RE code of “2X.” He was credited with 6 years, 3 months, and 19 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. The applicant was discharged under the Fiscal Year 2010 Air Force’s Force Shaping Date of Separation (DOS) Rollback Program. In accordance with AFI 36-2606, Reenlistment in the USAF, commanders have selective reenlistment selection or non-selection authority. The Selective Reenlistment Program (SRP) considers the members Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) 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. Although there is not an Air Force IMT 418, Selective Reenlistment Program Consideration, in the applicant’s record denying him reenlistment, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (absent evidence to the contrary) and as such all government officials are presumed to have exercised their duties in accordance with the governing law and established procedures. The applicant’s record shows evidence of disciplinary infractions that support his denial of reenlistment. Although he feels his RE code is incorrect for his type of discharge, he provides no proof of an error or injustice. In this case, the applicant’s RE code is correct based on being non-selected for reenlistment under the SRP. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 9 February 2015 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). As of this date, no response has been received by this office. 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 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 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-2014-03632 in Executive Session on 28 April 2015 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 August 2014, w/atchs. Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 20 November 2014. Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 February 2015.