RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-05487

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His reentry (RE) code of 2X (1st term, 2nd term or career airman considered but not selected for reenlistment) be changed to allow entry into the Air National Guard (ANG).  

2.  Block 8b, Station Where Separated, of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be corrected to reflect “Andrews Air Force Base, Maryland,” instead of “Randolph Air Force Base, Texas.”

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

1.  His First Sergeant requested individuals to voluntarily separate due to the squadron’s need to cut back manning for the Date of Separation (DOS) Rollback Program.  He volunteered to separate with the assurance of an honorable discharge and the ability to re-enter as a commissioned officer.  However, he later tried to join the ANG and discovered that his RE code was erroneously annotated as 2X.  He was told by his recruiter that his Article 15 received two years prior to his separation, for a minor security incident, should not be a hindrance to reentry and did not warrant a RE code of 2X.  Also, since he received recognition for his exemplary service after the issuance his Article 15, and received an honorable discharge, he should be allowed entry into the ANG.  If he had known that he would receive an RE code of 2X, he would not have volunteered to separate and remained on active duty to later transfer to the ANG.  

2.  His DD Form 214 contained errors about his military career.  Specifically, his separating base is annotated incorrectly.  

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

________________________________________________________________



STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 6 February 2007.

On 10 November 2009, the applicant received non-judicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).  The reason for the action was dereliction in the performance of his duties in that, on 18 September 2009, he negligently failed to ensure a vehicle was swept by an explosion detection dog team prior to entering the entrapment area at Hanger 20.  His commander imposed punishment consisting of reduced to the grade of Airman First Class (E-3), effective 10 November 2009, forfeiture of $250.00 pay per month for two months (suspended through 9 May 2010), and a Reprimand.  

On 21 January 2010, the applicant received a Referral Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) for comments related to allowing unauthorized vehicle entry to Priority/Protection Level resource and for his receipt of the aforementioned Article 15.  

On 22 November 2011, an AF Form 418, Selective Reenlistment Program (SRP) Consideration for Airmen in the Regular Air Force/Air Force Reserve, was issued indicating the applicant was not recommended for reenlistment.  

On 22 November 2011, the applicant acknowledged receipt of his notification of reenlistment eligibility.  

On 22 November 2011, the applicant was not selected for reenlistment.  The applicant’s commander indicated the applicant identified himself as eligible for separation under the DOS Rollback program and it was his intention to deny the applicant reenlistment in the United States Air Force.  

On 22 November 2011, the applicant indicated he did not intend to appeal the non-selection for reenlistment.  

On 22 November 2011, the applicant’s reenlistment eligibility code was updated to 2X.

On 31 March 2012, the applicant was furnished an honorable discharge, with a narrative reason for separation of “Completion of Required Active Service,” along with a separation program designator (SPD) code of “JBK” and RE code of “2X.” 

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice with respect to his RE code.  Although the applicant contends he voluntarily separated, his separation was due to being identified as eligible for the DOS rollback program.  His commander made a conscious decision to utilize the rollback guidance by non-selecting him for reenlistment.  In accordance with AFI 36-2606, Reenlistment in the USAF, commanders have selective reenlistment selection or non-selection authority.  The Selective Reenlistment Program (SRP) considers the member’s Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) ratings, unfavorable information from any substantiated source, and the airman’s willingness to comply with Air Force standards and/or the airman’s ability (or lack thereof) to meet required training and duty performance levels.  Based on the FY 12 Rollback guidance, the applicant was required to separate on 31 March 2012 because of his non-selection for reenlistment.  Therefore, the RE code “2X” is consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of “First-term, second-term or career airman considered but not selected for reenlistment under the SRP”.  

A complete copy of the 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 11 January 2013 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 an error or injustice with respect to the applicant’s reentry (RE) code.  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 (OPR) and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  In regards to the applicant’s request to change his station where separated, in 2008 the Regular Air Force began centrally processing DD Forms 214 at Joint Base San Antonio Randolph (JBSAR).  Documents published from that time to present, will list Randolph Air Force Base (AFB), Texas in block 8b, “station where separated,” since this is the location where the document was signed, made effective, and the final separation transaction took place.  The DD Form 214 is not a document that records a lineage of bases stationed or where member served to include their last base.  The inclusion of Randolph AFB, TX on the DD Form 214 is administrative and does not impact a member’s benefits or entitlements.  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-2012-05487 in Executive Session on 29 August 2013, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 10 November 2012, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 20 December 2012.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 January 2013. 




                                   
                                   Panel Chair


4