RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

      IN THE MATTER OF:            DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2008-01139
            INDEX CODE: 112.10
      XXXXXXX                     COUNSEL:  NONE
                                   HEARING DESIRED:  NO

______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reentry code of “2X” which denotes "First-term, second-term,  or  career
airman considered but not  selected  for  reenlistment  under  the  SRP"  be
upgraded to a “1” series reentry code (Fully qualified for enlistment).

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

According to AFI 36-2606, Reenlistment in the United States Air  Force,  he
does not feel his commander considered his supervisor's recommendation  for
reenlistment  on  the  AF  Form   418,   Selective   Reenlistment   Program
Consideration; his 12 years of duty performance or  his  potential,  before
making his decision.

On 25 January 2008, he submitted an AF Form 418 to his unit commander.  His
supervisor stated he could continue to be a productive member  of  the  Air
Force and recommended him  for  reenlistment.   His  commander  denied  his
request based on poor performance in adhering to  Air  Force  core  values,
specifically integrity.  AFI 36-2606, Reenlistment in the United States Air
Force,  states  the  commander's  responsibilities  are  to  consider   the
supervisor's recommendation, duty performance, and career force  potential.
He does not believe his  commander  took  this  into  consideration  before
signing the AF Form 418.

He asks the Board to consider his entire military record, as  well  as  his
achievements during this enlistment before making a decision and provides a
background of some of his achievements while in the  military.   The  Idaho
National Guard (ING) is critically manned and if his records  are  changed,
the ING would gain a trained member with a proven ability to perform  at  a
high capacity.

In support of his request, the applicant  submits  a  personal  memorandum,
copies of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from  Active
Duty; AF Form 910, Enlisted Performance Reports; awards and decorations and
character references.

His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 14 January 2000, the applicant reenlisted in the Air Force for six  years
in the grade of senior airman (E-4).

On 7 January 2008, the commander notified him he was considering whether  he
should punish him  under  Article  15,  Uniform  Code  of  Military  Justice
(UCMJ).

While serving as a recruiter in the grade of technical sergeant he  violated
lawful general regulations by:  1)  Wrongfully  failing  to  maintain  total
professionalism in his relationships with applicants (he drank alcohol  with
them and allowed a female to spend the night with  him  in  his  home).   2)
Wrongfully suggesting an applicant change her  martial  status  and  conceal
the military status of her future  husband.   3)  Failing  to  refrain  from
using government cellular phone for unauthorized purposes.

On 15 January 2008, the commander determined he committed  one  or  more  of
the alleged offenses  and  imposed  punishment  consisting  of  a  suspended
reduction to staff sergeant (E-5).

On 22 January 2008, he appealed the punishment.  On  24  January  2008,  his
appeal was denied.

On 25 January 2008, his supervisor initiated an AF Form 418 and  recommended
him for reenlistment.  The supervisor stated he thought the applicant  could
be a productive member in his Primary  Air  Force  Specialty  Code  (PAFSC).
The commander nonconcurred and did not select  him  for  reenlistment.   The
commander cited poor performance in  adhering  to  Air  Force  core  values,
specifically integrity.

On 13 March 2008, he was discharged in the grade of technical sergeant  with
service characterized as honorable.

He served 12 years, 1 month and 27 days on active duty.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial.  DPSOA states they  found  no  evidence  of
error or injustice; nor did the  applicant  submit  evidence  of  any.   The
commander, who has total reenlistment authority,  denied  his  reenlistment.
DPSOA surmised the commander  considered  the  supervisor's  recommendation,
but in no way, does a  recommendation  outweigh  the  commander's  decision.
His on an off-duty conduct is sufficient reason for denial of  reenlistment.
 He contends the commander should base his decision on his  entire  military
record.   First  of  all,  retention  under  the  SRP  is  based  on   one's
demonstrated  capability  and  willingness  to  maintain  high  professional
standards.    Secondly,   the   1 February   1999   nonjudicial   punishment
demonstrates a lack of integrity and willingness to comply  with  standards.
Based on the facts and substantiated unfavorable  information;  the  reentry
code  of  “2X”  is  correct  based  on  his  current  enlistment  alone;  as
commanders only consider incidents during current  enlistment  and  not  the
entire record.

The complete DPSOA evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to  the  applicant  on  25
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 injustice  to  warrant  changing  the  applicant’s
reentry code.  We took notice of the  applicant’s  complete  submission  in
judging the merits of the case,  however;  after  considering  the  matters
raised by the applicant, we find no evidence showing that in rendering  his
decision, his commander abused his  discretionary  authority  or  made  the
decision based on inappropriate considerations.  Therefore  we  agree  with
the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its  rationale  as
the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim  of
an error or injustice.  In  the  absence  of  persuasive  evidence  to  the
contrary, we find no compelling basis  to  recommend  granting  the  relief
sought in this application.

______________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate
the existence of material 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 AFBCMR Docket Number  BC-2007-
01139 in Executive Session on 28 May 2008, under the provisions of  AFI  36-
2603:

                 Mr.  James W. Russell III, Panel Chair
            Ms.  Karen A. Holloman, Member
            Mr.  Wallace F. Beard Jr., Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining  to  Docket  Number  BC-2007-
01139 was considered:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 March 2008, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 14 April 2008, w/atch.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 April 2008.




                                   JAMES W. RUSSELL III
                                   Panel Chair