Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04153
Original file (BC-2011-04153.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-04153 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His reentry (RE) code 2X, which denotes “First-term, second 
term, or career airman considered but not selected for 
reenlistment under the Selective Reenlistment Program (SRP)” be 
changed. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He is trying to reenlist in the Air National Guard; however, his 
recruiter informed him that he is ineligible to reenlist with RE 
code “2X.” He is not sure why the code is there. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides a copy of his 
DD Form 214, Certificate of Release and Discharge from Active 
Duty. 

 

The applicant's complete submission, with attachment, is at 
Exhibit A. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

On 8 Jun 95, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force. 

 

On 24 Aug 98, the applicant was approved for retraining into 
AFSC 3C012 which denotes “Communications – Computer Systems 
Programming” with a class start date of 27 Jan 99 and graduation 
date of 14 Apr 99. 

 

On 7 Jun 99, the applicant was honorably discharged and received 
an RE code of 2X. He served on active duty for a period of four 
years. 

 

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of 
the Air Force, which is attached at Exhibit B. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

 

 


 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial. DPSOA states a search of the 
applicant’s record did not reveal an AF Form 418, Selective 
Reenlistment Program (SRP) Consideration non-selecting him. 
However, there is an ARPC Form 0-73, Record/Document Referral 
indicating the applicant had an ineligible RE Code and should 
have been discharged instead of released. 

 

Although there is no AF Form 418 in his records, there is a 
presumption of regularity in which the applicant was assigned 
the correct RE code (absent documentation to support an error). 
In addition, the applicant did not provide any evidence of an 
error or injustice that would warrant change of his RE code. 

 

The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit B. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The applicant disputes the facts contained in the Air Force 
advisory opinion. Specifically, the part that states “he was 
not eligible to stay in the Air Force and had to separate based 
on the RE code 2X, and “should have been discharged (records 
sent to National Personnel Records Center) instead of released 
(records sent to ARPC – as done in this case erroneously).” 

 

The applicant states he was selected for promotion to the grade 
of staff sergeant; was inducted as a noncommissioned officer 
(NCO); received a career job reservation (CJR); was approved to 
cross-train into the 3C012 career field; was a first term airman 
who was selected under the SRP, and has an AF Form 100, Request 
and Authorization for Separation that reflects he was released 
from active duty/transferred to RESAF. 

 

The applicant states he does not have an AF Form 418 and neither 
does the Air Force. He has supported the fight since 1995 when 
he first enlisted in the Air Force and will continue to support 
the national security interests in this capacity. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

 

1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by 
existing law or regulations. 

 

2. The application was timely 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. After 
thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record and noting the 
applicant’s contentions, we are not persuaded that he has been 
the victim of an error or injustice. Although the entire 
package is not available for our review, based upon the 
presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs 
and without evidence to the contrary, we must assume that the 
applicant's RE Code was proper and in compliance with 
appropriate directives. Therefore, we agree with the opinion 
and recommendation of 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 in justice. 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 issues involved. 
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably 
considered. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 Docket Number 
BC-2011-04153 in Executive Session on 31 May 12, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 Panel Chair 

 Member 

 Member 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2011-04153 was considered: 

 


 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 14 Oct 11, w/atch. 

 Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 6 Dec 11. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 Dec 11. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 24 Dec 11. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair 

 



Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03414

    Original file (BC-2011-03414.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    ________________________________________________________________ THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial stating, in part, the applicant did not provide any evidence of an error or injustice that would warrant a change of his RE code. 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. ________________________________________________________________ The...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01103

    Original file (BC 2014 01103.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 23 May 12, his supervisor signed the AF IMT 418, Selective Reenlistment Program (SRP) Consideration for Airmen in the Regular Air Force/Air Force Reserve, indicating he was not recommending him for reenlistment due to his duty performance and multiple disciplinary issues. On 14 May 12, his supervisor presented him with an AF IMT 1058, Unfavorable Information File Action, notifying him that he intended to place him on the control roster for his duty performance and multiple disciplinary...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-01614

    Original file (BC-2011-01614.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    His commander denied his reenlistment request and stated the applicant displayed an inability to comply with Air Force standards and Core Values. On 30 Jun 10, the applicant was separated with an honorable discharge due to his non-selection for reenlistment; with an RE code of 2X and a Separation Program Designator (SPD) code of JBK (Completion of Required Active Service). _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00657

    Original file (BC-2013-00657.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-00657 COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO ______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Reentry (RE) code of 2X, which denotes "1st term, 2nd term or career airman considered but not selected for reenlistment under the selective reenlistment program (SRP)," be changed to 3K, which denotes “Reserved for Use by AFPC or AFBCMR,” to...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00193

    Original file (BC-2012-00193.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-00193 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Reenlistment Code of “2X” “1ST-Term, 2ND-Term or Career Amn Not Selected Under Selective Reenlistment Program (SRP)” be changed. The applicant’s supervisor non- recommended him for reenlistment and his commander non-selected him on an AF IMT 418,...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2009-01103

    Original file (BC-2009-01103.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force at Exhibits C and D. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial. The applicant’s DD Form 214 is correct and she has not provided any evidence of an error or injustice to warrant the requested changes to her discharge...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-00382

    Original file (BC-2011-00382.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial. At the time of the applicant’s discharge he received an erroneous RE code of 4I. While the 4I RE code is technically incorrect, the applicant has provided no evidence to support his request for a code that would allow him to reenlist.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04106

    Original file (BC-2011-04106.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-04106 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reentry (RE) code of “2X – First-term, second-term, or career airman considered but not selected for reenlistment under the SRP,” be changed to allow him to reenter the military. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03876

    Original file (BC-2011-03876.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-03876 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His 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 to allow him to reenter the Air Force. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 03589

    Original file (BC 2014 03589.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03589 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be amended as follows: His separation code “JBK” which denotes “Completion of Required Active Service” be changed. The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. The medical records provided by the applicant are noted; however, he has not...