RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-00453 

 INDEX CODE: 126.04, 112.10 

 

 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

The Article 15 she received on 20 Dec 06 be removed and her 
Reentry (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. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

The Article 15 she received was given under false statements 
from others, which subsequently led to her discharge. 

 

In support of her appeal, the applicant provides extracts from 
her Article 15 correspondence and copies of pertinent directives 
to support her appeal. 

 

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit A. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

On 17 Jun 98, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air. She 
was progressively promoted to the grade of senior airman (E-
4/SrA). 

 

While serving in the grade of SrA, the applicant’s commander 
offered her nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for an attempted 
assault on a fellow airman and for disobeying a no contact 
order. The applicant accepted the NJP proceedings and waived 
her right to demand trial by court-martial. She presented 
matters to and personally appeared before the commander, who, on 
20 Dec 06, decided the applicant committed the alleged offenses. 
Her punishment consisted of a suspended reduction in grade to 
airman first class (E-3/A1C), a suspended forfeiture of pay, 


15 days of extra duty, and a reprimand. The applicant did not 
appeal the commander’s findings or the punishment. 

 

The applicant was honorably released from active duty under the 
provisions of AFI 36-3208, on 15 Mar 07, with a reason for 
separation of completion of required active service, and issued 
an RE code of 2X. She was credited with 8 years, 8 months, and 
29 days of active duty service. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial. 

 

In their discussion of the case, they note that NJP is 
authorized by Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice 
(UCMJ), and is governed by the Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM) 
and Air Force Instruction (AFI) 51-201, Administration of 
Military Justice. The applicant contends that the NJP was given 
to her “under false statements from others,” and led to her 
eventual involuntary separation. She has not provided any new 
information beyond what was provided to the commander at the 
time of the NJP proceedings. Based on this alone, she has not 
met her burden of proof to show error or injustice on the part 
of the commander in issuing nonjudicial punishment for these 
offenses. The commander was in the best position to carefully 
weigh all of the evidence, make informed findings in fact, and 
arrive at a suitable punishment. Furthermore, if the applicant 
believed the Article 15 findings were in error, her first 
recourse should have been to appeal them to the next higher 
authority. However, she opted to not appeal. 

 

The punishment imposed in the Article 15 was appropriate and 
contrary to the applicant’s assertion, not unfairly harsh. The 
applicant actually served only 15 days of extra duty and 
received a reprimand; the rest of the punishment was suspended 
and later remitted. The punishments were authorized and 
commensurate to the offenses committed. 

 

The complete AFLOA/JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial of the applicant’s request to 
change her RE code. They note, although there is no AF Form 
418, Selective Reenlistment Program Consideration, in the 
records, it is reasonable based on a presumption of normality 
the commander non-selected the applicant for reenlistment 
considering the information listed in the Article 15 and 
placement on the control roster. AFI 36-2606, Reenlistment in 
the USAF, states 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. 

 

The complete AFPC/DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 6 Aug 10 for review and comment within 30 days. As 
of this date, no response has been received by this office 
(Exhibit E). 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 error or injustice. We took notice 
of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of 
the case. However, in our view, the Air Force office of primary 
responsibility and the Air Force Legal Operations Agency have 
adequately addressed the issues presented by the applicant and 
we are in agreement with their opinion and recommendation. We 
find no evidence of an error or injustice that occurred during 
the NJP proceedings; nor has the applicant provided any evidence 
which would lead us to believe the NJP was contrary to the 
provisions of the governing directives, unduly harsh, or 
disproportionate to the offenses committed. Additionally, at 
the time members are separated from the Air Force, they are 
furnished an RE code predicated upon the quality of their 
service and the circumstances of their separation. Based upon 
the presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental 
affairs and without evidence to the contrary, we believe the RE 
code issued was in accordance with the governing directives. In 
view of the above and in the absence of evidence to the 
contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief 
sought in this application. 

 

4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not 
been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel 
will materially add to our understanding of the issue(s) 


involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably 
considered. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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-2010-00453 in Executive Session on 30 September 2010, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 15 Jan 10, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 17 Mar 10. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 6 May 10. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Aug 10. 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair