RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-01217
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
1. Her reentry (RE) code of 2X (1st term, 2nd term orcareer airman considered but not selected for reenlistment) bechanged to a 1 code (waiverable).
2. Her separation code of JBK (completion of requiredservice) be changed.
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
She received an honorable discharge. Her RE and separation codesare unjust because she was discharged due to the Force ShapingProgram and not an unfavorable act.
In support of her request, the applicant submits a copy of her DDForm 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Dutyand a letter of recommendation.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is atExhibit A.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 26 Feb 08, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force.
On 19 Dec 09, she received an Article 15 for being derelict inthe performance of her duties in that she willfully failed towear her Individual Body Armor while on duty. For this offense,
she was reduced to the grade of airman (suspended) and ordered toforfeit $824.00 per month (reduced to $250.00) for 2 months andreprimanded.
On 25 Mar 10, her commander non-selected her for reenlistment dueto Article 15 action. On 30 Jun 10, she was honorably dischargedfor completion of required active service. She served two years,
four months and five days on active duty.
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial of the applicants request to changeher narrative reason for separation. DPSOS notes the applicantwas selected for the Date of Separation (DOS) Rollback Program byher commander for Article 15 punishment. The DOS rollback
program utilizes the Separation Program Designation (SPD) codeJBK (less than 6 years of active service) with a correspondingnarrative reason for separation of Completion of Required ActiveService because the member is denied further continuation or
reenlistment and as in the applicants case, the DOS/ExpirationTerm of Service may be involuntarily accelerated. The
involuntary SPD code of JBK relieved members of recoupmentobligation for unserved portions of bonuses since the membersterm of service was involuntarily accelerated.
DPSOS states the applicants discharge was correctly administeredbased upon her RE code of 2X (denied reenlistment).
DPSOS declares no errors or injustices in the processing of thedischarge action were found. Based on the documentation on file
in the master personnel record, the discharge to include thecharacterization of service was consistent with the proceduraland substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and waswithin the discretion of the discharge authority. In addition,
the applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errorsor injustices that occurred in the discharge process.
The complete DPSOS evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C.
DPSOA recommends denial of her request to change her RE code.
DPSOA states commanders have selective reenlistment selection
authority. The Selective Reenlistment Program (SRP) considersthe members Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) ratings,
Unfavorable Information from any substantiated source, the
airmans willingness to comply with Air Force standards and/orthe airmans ability (or lack of) to meet required training andduty performance levels. DPSOA notes the applicant did notprovide any proof of an error or injustice in reference to her REcode and she did not appeal the decision.
DPSOA notes the applicants commander provided a memorandumstating the applicant would have been able to stay in the serviceif it were not for the Force Shaping program and he recommendedher for enlistment in the Army; however, he subsequently nonselected
her for reenlistment and stated that she should not
serve in the Air Force in any capacity, active duty, reserves orAir National Guard. He also took specific action to separateher under the Rollback program. She was only identified aseligible to be separated under the Rollback because she wasserving an Article 15 suspended punishment. If her commander
wanted her retained, he would not have taken any action and shewould have continued on active duty.
The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit D.
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicanton 17 Jul 12, for review and comment within 30 days. As of this
date, this office has received no response (Exhibit E).
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existinglaw 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 applicants complete submission in judging the merits ofthe case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendationsof the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopttheir 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 nobasis to recommend granting the relief sought in this
application.
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did notdemonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; thatthe application was denied without a personal appearance; andthat the application will only be reconsidered upon the
submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not consideredwith this application.
The following members of the Board considered this application inExecutive Session on 5 Feb 13, under the provisions of AFI 362603:
Panel Chair
Member
Member
The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC2012-
01217:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 16 Feb 12, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 8 May 12, w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 29 Jun 12.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Jul 12.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2008-00553
________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She voluntarily separated from the military under the Date of Separation (DOS) Rollback Program and received an honorable discharge. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 April 2008. 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00835
On 31 May 11, the applicant was honorably discharged under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation Of Airmen, with a narrative reason of completion of required active service, a corresponding SPD code of JBK, and an RE code of 2X. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial, stating, in part, based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge to include the narrative...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02577
DPSOS states the DOS rollback program utilizes the Separation Program Designator (SPD) code JBK (less than 6 years of active service) or LBK (more than 6 years of active service) with a corresponding narrative reason for separation of Completion of Required Active Service since the member is denied further continuation or reenlistment and as in the applicants case, the DOS/ETS may be involuntarily accelerated. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-03589
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03589 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) and separation code of JBK (less than six years of active service), be changed to allow...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-00067
While serving in the Air Force he had all but one 5 Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs). He received $10,314.00 in separation pay and received a 2X 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 circumstances of their separation.
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2009-00707
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2009-00707 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Article 15, nonjudicial punishment (NJP), and all actions associated with the punishment be removed; she be reinstated to active duty with her original date of rank; and her reentry (RE) code be changed to one that would allow her to return to...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00165
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-00165 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO IN THE MATTER OF: ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 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 to 1M (Eligible to reenlist, second-term or career airmen not yet...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02189
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02189 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed. The raters comments state Member elected not to provide comments to the referral memo dated 24 Nov 2010. On 18 Feb 11, the applicants squadron commander did not select her for reenlistment stating she had received an Article 15 for drawing a sexual innuendo...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2008-00752
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He received an Article 15 and while he was on leave his commander received a notice to separate airmen with bad records under the Force Shaping program. The complete DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOA states the applicant was not serving suspended punishment under Article 15, UCMJ at the time of his release. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC 2009 00033
The applicant contends that none of the evaluators were members of the Air Force. In accordance with AFR 39-62, Noncommissioned Officer and Airman Performance Reports, when none of the evaluators are Air Force personnel, an Air Force advisor must sign the report. Even if the reasons for the delay in filing are insufficient to excuse the delay, we may examine the facts and circumstances of the case and, if substantial evidence of error or injustice exists, waive the three year time limit...