RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-03787 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His Separation Code of “LBK” with a narrative reason for 
separation of “Completion of Required Service” and his Reentry 
Code of “2X” “1ST-Term, 2ND-Term or Career Amn Not Selected Under 
Selective Reenlistment Program (SRP)” be changed to allow him 
entry into a Naval Officers program. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

His separation code indicates he is undesirable for reentry into 
the Armed Forces. This is preventing him from entry into a 
Naval Officers program after he graduates from college. 

 

He served all his time honorably and without incident. He is 
currently in perfect physical shape. The only thing keeping him 
from furthering his career with the Armed Forces as a linguist 
is the code on his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or 
Discharge from Active Duty. He requests that the RE code be 
amended to show that he is fit for reenlistment. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of his 
DD Form 214. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 
2 December 1998. 

 

On 23 October 2001, the applicant received an Article 15 for 
violation of Article 86 “Failure To Go At The Time Prescribed To 
His Appointed Place Of Duty.”, with punishment consisting of 
forfeiture of $100.00 pay and reduction to the grade of Airman, 
E-2, suspended until 22 January 2002 after which time it would 
be remitted without further action, unless sooner vacated. 

 


On 1 December 2002 the applicant was released from active duty 
with an honorable character of service. He was credited with 
completing 4 years of active duty service. 

 

______________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial. DPSOS states the applicant was 
separated due to completion of required active service and was 
considered but not selected for reenlistment under the Selective 
Reenlistment Program. Based upon the denial of reenlistment, 
the applicant was properly separated. 

 

The applicant states he would like to reenlist as a linguist in 
a naval officer program upon his graduation from college. 
However, his discharge was not voluntary, but rather because of 
his ineligibility to reenlist. Although the applicant’s 
rationale for the requested change is in good spirit, it should 
be pointed out that the separation code reason and RE code 
authorized him one-half separation pay and any correction to his 
separation code could result in the recoupment of the separation 
pay. 

 

Based on the documentation on file in the master personnel 
records, the discharge to include the separation code was 
consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of 
the discharge instruction and was within the discretion of the 
discharge authority. The applicant did not provide any evidence 
of an error or injustice in the discharge processing. 

 

The complete AFPC/DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial. DPSOA states, the applicant’s RE 
code 2X is required per AFI 36-2606, Reenlistments in the USAF. 
The AFI states, commanders have selective reenlistment selection 
or non-selection authority. The Selective Reenlistment Program 
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. A thorough search of the applicant’s 
record did not reveal an AF Form 418, Selective Reenlistment 
Program Consideration non-selecting him; however, a printout 
from the Personnel Data System dated 15 November 2011 identified 
the applicant was non-selected for reenlistment. Additionally, 
the applicant received an Article 15 that would support the RE 
code 2X. 

 

The applicant states he does not have any evidence to support 
his claim other than what is on the DD Form 214 which indicates 
he served his term of enlistment and received an honorable 
discharge. The applicant did not provide any evidence of error 
or injustice that would warrant change of his RE code. 


 

The complete AFPC/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 2 December 2011 for review and comment within 
30 days. As of this date, this office has not received a 
response. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 error or injustice. We took notice 
of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of 
the case; however, we agree with the opinions and 
recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary 
responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our 
conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an 
error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the 
contrary, we find no 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 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 this application 
BC-2011-03787 in Executive Session on 17 April 2012, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

, Member 

 , Member 

 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149 dated 27 September 2010, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 20 October 2011. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 15 November 2011. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 December 2011. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair