Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04621
Original file (BC-2012-04621.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-04621

		COUNSEL:  NONE 

		HEARING DESIRED: NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her Re-entry (RE) code of “2X” (1st Term, 2nd Term or Career AMN 
Not Selected under Selection Retention Process (SRP)) be changed 
to “1J” (Eligible To Reenlist-Elected Separation Or Discharge) 
to allow her to return to service.  

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was forced out through no fault of her own.  She received an 
honorable discharge, severance pay and benefits.  She wants the 
opportunity to serve her country once again and complete the 
remaining 10 years of service and retire.  She has two children 
to care for and after being out for a year, she finally got a 
job as a waitress.  

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. 

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 7 August 2001 
and was released on 31 May 2011 with an honorable character of 
service and was credited with 9 years, 9 months, and 24 days of 
active duty service.  

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application 
extracted from the applicant’s military personnel records are 
contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate Air Force 
office of primary responsibility at Exhibit C.   

______________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

1.  AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial.  DPSOA states the applicant 
was discharged on 31 May 2011 under the FY11 AF Force Shaping 
Rollback Program and was authorized severance pay.  The 
applicant was identified as eligible for the rollback based on 
her being on the Control Roster.  However, being on the control 
roster only made her eligible for the Rollback; her commander 
made a conscious decision to separate the applicant under the 
Rollback guidance by non-selecting her for reenlistment; meaning 
she had to be separated and could not have stayed in the Air 
Force.  The applicant's supervisor non-recommended her on an AF 
IMT 418, Selective Reenlistment Program Consideration on 22 Feb 
2011 listing numerous disciplinary infractions and her commander 
non-selected her for reenlistment the same day.  The applicant 
acknowledged her non-selection on 22 Feb 2012 and rendered her 
intent not to appeal the decision on 25 Feb 2011.  

2.  AFI 36-2606, Reenlistment in the USAF, states that 
commanders have selective reenlistment selection or non-
selection authority.  The Selective Reenlistment Program (SRP) 
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.  The applicant did not provide any 
proof of an error or injustice in reference to her RE code and 
her non-selection was in accordance with current guidance.  

The complete AFPC/DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the 
applicant on 14 December 2012 for review and comment within 
30 days.  To date, a response has not been received. 

________________________________________________________________

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 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 
in Executive Session on 27 June 2013, under the provisions of 
AFI 36-2603:

			, Panel Chair
			, Member
			, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR 
Docket Number BC-2012-04621:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149 dated 3 October 2012.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 30 November 2012.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 December 2012. 




                                   
                                   Panel Chair



AFBCMR
1500 West Perimeter Road
Joint Base Andrews NAF Washington, MD 20762






Dear:

	Reference your application submitted under the provisions of AFI 36-2603 (Section 1552, 
10 USC), AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-04621. 

	After careful consideration of your application and military records, the Board determined 
that the evidence you presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice.  
Accordingly, the Board denied your application.

	You have the right to submit newly discovered relevant evidence for consideration by the 
Board.  In the absence of such additional evidence, a further review of your application is not 
possible.

	BY DIRECTION OF THE PANEL CHAIR




				                                   
				                                   Chief Examiner
				                                   Air Force Board for Correction
				                                   of Military Records

Attachment:
Record of Board Proceedings



 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
WASHINGTON, DC


Office of the Assistant Secretary


DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00165

    Original file (BC-2012-00165.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2013 | BC 2013 05025

    Original file (BC 2013 05025.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: When she was discharged from the Air Force, the control roster action had already expired. On the same date, the applicant’s commander non- selected her for reenlistment. On 4 Apr 14, AFPC/DPSOA informed the applicant that after a thorough review of her personnel records, they discovered that her RE Code of 4I was incorrect and should be 2X (First-term, second- term or career airman considered but not selected for reenlistment under the SRP) based on her...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-02787

    Original file (BC-2012-02787.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02787 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His 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 allow his reentry into the military. On 17 Feb 2011, the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2008-00553

    Original file (BC-2008-00553.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    ________________________________________________________________ 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 | 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 05874

    Original file (BC 2012 05874.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-05874 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her reentry (RE) code of 2X (1st term, 2nd term or career airman considered but not selected for reenlistment) on her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be changed. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 05874

    Original file (BC 2012 05874.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-05874 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her reentry (RE) code of 2X (1st term, 2nd term or career airman considered but not selected for reenlistment) on her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be changed. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00783

    Original file (BC-2013-00783.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application extracted from the applicant’s military personnel records are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate Air Force office of primary responsibility at Exhibit C. ______________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 1. AFI 36-2606, Reenlistment in the USAF, states commanders have selective reenlistment selection or non-selection authority. We took notice of the applicant's complete...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02503

    Original file (BC 2014 02503.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02503 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The reentry (RE) code of “2X” (1st term, 2nd term or career airman considered but not selected for reenlistment) on her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be changed to allow her to reenter the military. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-02475

    Original file (BC-2012-02475.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit B. He has never done any of the actions he was accused of by the three airmen. Moreover, he has not provided substantial evidence that but for the Article 15 he would have been selected for reenlistment.