RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03836 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His Reenlistment (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 12 
[sic] (Recommend for reenlistment). 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

The accusations against him were not adequate to discharge him, 
so his chain of command unjustly denied him reenlistment after 
over 15 years of service. In Jun 11, his commander approved his 
reenlistment even though he had received a Letter of Reprimand 
(LOR) and non-judicial punishment under Article 15 of the 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). However, his chain of 
command fabricated two additional LORs in order to involuntarily 
dismiss him from the military, and then denied his reenlistment 
in Mar 12. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 
15 Jan 97, and was progressively promoted to the grade of Staff 
Sergeant (E-5). 

 

On 5 Feb 05, the applicant received a Letter of Counseling (LOC) 
for forms documentation errors, after being verbally counseled 
numerous times. 

 

On 20 Jan 09, the applicant received an Article 15 for violation 
of UCMJ Article 107: with intent to deceive, signing an official 
record by falsifying an inspection record to reflect that work 
had been completed and inspected, and by adding someone else’s 
initials, signature, and employee number. 

 


On 10 Jul 09, the applicant received a referral Enlisted 
Performance Report (EPR) for the period 2 Jun 08 through 
1 Jun 09 due to receipt of the Article 15. 

 

On 3 Aug 09, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) 
for failing to follow established tool turn-in procedures. 

 

On 30 Nov 11, the applicant received an LOR for entering into an 
aircraft without first checking the forms and making the 
aircraft safe for maintenance. 

 

On 7 Dec 11, the applicant received an LOR for failing to clear 
his area of FOD after being told to do so, lack of equipment 
accountability, poor storage of equipment, no serviceable 
documentation, and failure to provide proper leadership. 

 

On 19 Jan 12, the applicant received an LOR for committing 
maintenance malpractice by failure to comply with numerous basic 
maintenance practices, and disobeying direct verbal 
instructions. 

 

On 12 Mar 12, the applicant received a referral EPR for the 
period 2 Jun 11 through 2 Mar 12 for dereliction of duty and his 
failure to obey a direct order. 

 

On 28 Mar 12, the applicant’s commander denied the applicant 
reenlistment under the SRP. The applicant appealed the 
decision. The action was subsequently determined to be legally 
sufficient and the Staff Judge Advocate recommended denial of 
the applicant’s appeal. On 25 May 12, the appeal authority 
denied the applicant’s appeal. 

 

On 19 Jun 12, the applicant was released from active duty with 
an Honorable character of service, was issued an RE Code of 2X, 
and credited with 15 years, 5 months, and 5 days of total active 
service. 

 

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of 
primary responsibility which is included at Exhibit C. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of 
an error or injustice. AFI 36-2606, Reenlistment in the USAF, 
states commanders have selective reenlistment selection or non-
selection authority. The SRP considers the members 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 applicant contents his two LORs 
were fabricated to facilitate his involuntary discharge. 
However, he had a history of minor disciplinary work related 


infractions to include an Article 15 on 7 Jan 09 for 
intentionally falsifying a “Red X” discrepancy by using another 
member’s signature block and initialing it indicating the work 
had been completed and inspected. Additionally, the applicant 
had three LORs in Aug 09, Dec 11, and Jan 12 for poor 
maintenance practices. 

 

A complete copy of the AFPC/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 6 Nov 12 for review and comment within 30 days. As 
of this date, no response has been received by this office 
(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 error or injustice. We took notice 
of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of 
the case; however, 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 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 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-2012-03836 in Executive Session on 2 Apr 13, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 


 

 Panel Chair 

 Member 

 Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 15 Aug 12, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 25 Oct 12. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Nov 12. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair