RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

      IN THE MATTER OF:            DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2008-00553
            INDEX CODE: 112.10
      XXXXXXX                     COUNSEL:  NONE
                                   HEARING DESIRED:  NO

______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  Her reentry code of "2X"  which  denotes  "First-term,  second-term,  or
career airman considered but not selected for reenlistment under  the  SRP,"
be corrected.

2.  Her separation code of "JBK" which denotes "Completion of Required
Active Service," be corrected.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She voluntarily separated from the military under the  Date  of  Separation
(DOS) Rollback Program and received an honorable discharge.  The separation
code she received "involuntary discharge/expiration of term" is  incorrect.
She reenlisted prior to separating and did not separate on bad terms.

In support of her request, the applicant submitted a copy of  her  DD  Form
214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty.

Her complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant contracted her initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force  on
19 November 2002, for a  period  of  four  years.   On  25 April  2005,  she
executed a 12-month extension of her enlistment in order to  qualify  for  a
PCS assignment.  On 6 December 2005, she reenlisted for a period of 4  years
and 16 months.  On 15 April 2007, she was separated under the provisions  of
AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airman paragraph  2.2  (Completion
of Required Active Service) and the DOS Rollback Program, with an  honorable
discharge.  Under the DOS Rollback Program airman with less than  six  years
of active service were separated with separation  program  designator  (SPD)
code "JBK" and separated effective  1 August  2007.   Applicants  identified
for the DOS Rollback  Program  possessed  certain  reenlistment  eligibility
codes, including code "2X."
Airman with less  than  14  years  total  active  federal  military  service
(TAFMS) had the option to request acceleration of their rollbacked  DOS  and
could submit a memorandum for approval of an  earlier  DOS.   She  requested
and was approved for acceleration of her DOS to 15 April 2007.  On 15  April
2007 she was  discharged  in  the  grade  of  airman  first  class  with  an
honorable discharge.

She served 4 years, 4 months and 27 days on active duty.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial.  DPSOS states based on the  documentation  or
file in the master personnel records, the discharge was consistent with the
procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge  regulation.   The
discharge was within the discretion of the discharge  authority.   She  did
not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that  occurred
in the discharge process.  She provided no facts warranting a change to her
separation code.

The complete DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPSOA  recommends  partial  approval.   DPSOA  states  the   selective
reenlistment program (SRP) objective is to ensure the AF retains airman who
consistently demonstrate the capability and willingness  to  maintain  high
professional standards.  According to AFI 36-2606,  Reenlistment  in  USAF,
unit commanders have total SRP selection or  non  selection  authority,  as
long as airmen are eligible for consideration or reconsideration.  It  also
states commanders have  total  selective  reenlistment  selection  or  non-
selection authority; will make selection or  non-selection  decisions  that
are consistent with other qualitative decisions, such  as  promotions,  and
based on substantial  evidence.   Commanders  will  consider  the  Enlisted
Performance  Report  (EPR)  ratings;  unfavorable  information   from   any
substantial source; the airman's willingness to comply with  AF  standards;
and the airman's ability (or lack of) to meet required  training  and  duty
performance standards.  DPSOA found no negative quality information in  her
record and some of the  comments  that  formed  the  basis  for  denial  of
reenlistment were vague and not documented, e.g.  record  of  counseling's,
letters of counseling, reprimand or referral EPR.  DPSOA is of the  opinion
she was not eligible for SRP consideration and recommends changing  her  RE
code to reflect “3K.”   The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit D.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant  on  11
April 2008 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of  this  date,  this
office has received no response (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 an injustice.  The applicant  requests  correction
of her separation  code  contending  that  her  separation  was  voluntary.
However, we are compelled to note first, that  the  separation  code  "JBK"
denotes separation at "completion of required active service" and does  not
specify whether the separation was voluntary or involuntary in nature;  and
secondly, contrary to her contention, discharges initiated  under  the  DOS
Rollback programs were in fact, involuntary in nature.  The Chief, Enlisted
Skills Management Branch has recommended that her reentry code  be  changed
noting  that  no  justification  was  found  warranting  nonselection   for
reenlistment and that the applicant was not eligible for SRP  consideration
by the commander.  The Board majority does not agree.  After review of  the
evidence of record, the Board majority noticed that during the short period
of time in which she served she  had  received  nonjudicial  punishment,  a
referral performance report, and that her most  recent  performance  report
reflected a downward trend in performance and believes the actions  of  her
commander  were  justified.   The  Board   majority   believes   that   the
discretionary authority of commanders is broad and although the instruction
governing  SRP  consideration   indicates   when   SRP   consideration   is
appropriate, it does restrict commanders from making SRP determinations  as
deemed necessary.  Therefore, in view of the above and in  the  absence  of
persuasive evidence to the contrary, the Board majority finds no compelling
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 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-2008-00553
in Executive Session on 15 May 08 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

            Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
            Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member
            Mr. James G. Neighbors, Member

By a  majority  vote,  the  Board  recommended  denial  of  the  applicant's
request.  Mr. Neighbors voted to correct the record as  recommended  by  the
Air Force office of primary responsibility but did  not  wish  to  submit  a
minority report.  The following documentary evidence  pertaining  to  Docket
Number BC-2008-00553 was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 7 February 2008, w/atch.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C   Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 17 March 2008.
    Exhibit D   Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 21 March 2008.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 April 2008.





            MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
            Panel Chair

Office of the Assistant Secretary

AFBCMR BC-2008-00553




MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

      Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force
Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section
1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:

      The pertinent military records of the  Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating to XXXXXXX, XXXXXXX, be corrected to show that on  15  April  2007,
she was discharged under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-3208,  paragraph  1-2,
(Secretarial Authority) with a reentry code of 3K.




                                       CMTSSignatureBlock
                                       JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                       Director Air Force Review Boards
                                       Agency

Office of the Assistant Secretary

MEMORANDUM FOR   THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD FOR
      CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)

SUBJECT:  AFBCMR Application on XXXXXXX

      I have carefully considered all the circumstances of this case and do
not agree with the opinion of the majority of the panel that the
applicant’s request that her reentry and separation codes be corrected
should be denied in its entirety.

      I agree that the applicant’s argument is insufficiently persuasive to
warrant changing her separation code.  However, I believe that a reasonable
basis has been established to change her reentry code.  The Air Force
office of primary responsibility (AFPC/DPSOA) notes that AFI 36-2606,
Reenlistment in the United States Air Force, provides commanders Selective
Reenlistment Program (SRP) selection or nonselection authority, as long as
airmen are eligible for consideration.  DPSOA found no evidence to support
early SRP consideration and believes that the AF Form 418, Selective
Reenlistment Program Consideration, was inappropriately administered.


      The Board majority believes the actions of her commander were
justified and believes the discretionary authority of commanders is broad
and the Instruction does not restrict commanders from making SRP
determinations as deemed necessary.


      I do not agree with the determination of the Board majority.
Subsequent to the nonjudicial punishment and referral EPR, she was allowed
to reenlist and there is no evidence of derogatory action after her
reenlistment, which would be required for early SRP consideration.  I
believe reasonable doubt has been established regarding the appropriateness
of the actions taken to render the applicant ineligible for reenlistment
and I believe any doubt in this matter should be resolved in her favor.
Therefore, it is my decision that her request for a change of her reentry
code be granted.




                                                                        JOE
G. LINEBERGER

Director
                                                                         Air
Force Review Boards Agency