RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-04378 

 

 COUNSEL: 

 

 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 
Selective Re-enlistment Program (SRP)) be changed. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He would like to reenter the military as an officer. The board 
should consider his overall “Above Average” rating on his last 
Enlisted Performance Report (EPR). 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant’s military personnel records indicate he enlisted 
in the Regular Air Force on 7 Aug 07. 

 

On 9 Feb 11, the applicant’s supervisor non-recommended him for 
reenlistment and, on the same day, the applicant’s commander 
non-selected him for reenlistment. In doing so, the commander 
indicated the applicant was unable to adapt to the standards and 
responsibilities of an Airman in the U.S. Air Force, noting that 
he had consistently demonstrated poor judgment over the course 
of his enlistment as evidenced by his being disciplined for 
assault and making physical threats to another member on a chat 
log, for which he received two Letters of Reprimand, 
respectively. He was also the subject of a Commander Directed 
Investigation (CDI) for a substantiated racial slur and anti-
Semitic statement. 

 

On 14 Feb 11, the applicant appealed the commander’s decision; 
however, his appeal was denied on 31 Mar 11. 


On 31 May 11, the applicant was furnished an honorable discharge 
and was credited with 3 years, 9 months, and 24 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 (OPR) which is attached at Exhibit C. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial, indicating the applicant has not 
provided any proof of an error or injustice in reference to his 
RE code. His non-selection for re-enlistment was carried out in 
accordance with AFI 36-2606, Reenlistment in the USAF, which 
indicates that commanders have selective reenlistment or non-
selection authority. The applicant was discharged under the 
FY11 Air Force Shaping Rollback Program. The applicant was in 
his reenlistment window but was denied reenlistment, which 
required him to separate under the rollback guidance. 

 

While the applicant highlights the fact that his last EPR rating 
was “Above Average,” such a rating is not indicative of the 
absence of disciplinary issues during the rating period, nor 
does it give immunity to other administrative actions as 
evidenced by the fact that his previous EPR, which was a 
referral EPR, had an identical rating. 

 

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

Counsel’s argues there is no evidence of misconduct in the 
applicant’s Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). Therefore, 
the command’s decision to bar the applicant from reenlistment is 
chronologically dishonest. He argues that the applicant’s 
command used derogatory information from prior to 6 May 10 as a 
basis to deny his reenlistment. Counsel also disagrees with the 
AFPC/DPSOA conclusion and does not understand the statement in 
the second paragraph that reads “However, none of these ratings 
means you didn’t get in trouble during that period or give you 
immunity to other administrative action.” Lastly, there was no 
reference to the additional matters submitted by the applicant 
for consideration in the advisory opinion. Therefore, the 
additional matters were resubmitted as attachments to the 
rebuttal for consideration. Counsel reiterates that the EPRs are 
not the issue, but it is the command’s need to rely upon 
derogatory information from months prior to justify actions not 
supported by the more recent evidence. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 


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 an error or injustice. We took 
notice of the applicant’s complete submission, including his 
rebuttal response, in judging the merits of the case; however, 
we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force 
office of primary responsibility (OPR) and adopt its rationale 
as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the 
victim of an error or injustice. While Counsel argues the 
command’s use of derogatory information from prior to 6 May 10 
as a basis for denying the applicant’s reenlistment was 
“chronologically dishonest,” we do not find this argument 
sufficient to convince us the applicant is the victim of an 
error or injustice. In this respect, we note the comments of 
the Air Force OPR indicating that according to AFI 36-2606, 
commanders may consider unfavorable information from any 
substantiated source when making a determination for 
reenlistment. Furthermore, while Counsel also argues the 
advisory opinion rendered in this case is not responsive to the 
additional information provided by the applicant in support of 
his request, we have thoroughly reviewed the applicant’s 
complete submission, to include the provided character 
statements, and do not find Counsel’s arguments or the 
documentation presented sufficient for us to substitute our 
judgment for that of the applicant’s commander. Therefore, in 
the absence of any evidence the commander abused his 
discretionary authority, the applicant’s discharge was 
disproportionate to the circumstances, or the applicant was 
denied right to which he was entitled, 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 denied. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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-2012-04378 in Executive Session on 23 May 13, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 17 Sep 12, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 31 Oct 12. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Nov 12. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant’s Counsel, dated 29 Nov 12, 

 w/atchs. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair