RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-02525
		COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED: YES

	 

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reentry (RE) code be changed from “2X” (First-term, second-
term, or career airman considered but not selected for 
reenlistment under the Selective Reenlistment Program (SRP)) to 
one that will allow him to enlist into another service.

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

1. In Jan 12, he volunteered and was selected for a short tour 
overseas assignment to Kunsan Air Base, Korea.  However, three 
days prior to his departure (November), his commander ordered 
him to take the Fitness Assessment (FA) test.  He was not 
scheduled to take the FA prior to his departure.  In fact, he 
was not supposed to take the test until he got to his new duty 
station.  He was under a lot of intense scrutiny by senior non-
commissioned and commissioned officers; therefore, due to the 
pressure, he failed the test and was placed on the control 
roster.  His orders to Kunsan were cancelled and he was given 90 
days to retest.  He was told that if he failed the retest, the 
Air Force would begin the discharge process, but if he 
successfully completed the test, he would be removed from the 
control roster.  

2. In Jan 13, he passed the retest with a 79.6 percent score, 
but was not taken off the control roster.  At that point the Air 
Force began the Roll Back program and he was not selected for 
retention due to being on the control roster.  While he has had 
some difficulty passing the FA test, he has shown that he can 
pass the test and maintain his personal physical fitness.  He is 
also an expert in his career field and was a valued asset to the 
Air Force.  He strongly believes that he can be an asset to the 
Armed Forces and to the United States of America.  He is simply 
requesting that his RE code be changed so that he can continue 
to serve his country.

3. He joined the Air Force in 2010 and became an egress 
technician to help maintain one of the most incredible man-made 
wonders, the B-2 Spirit.  He successfully completed his upgrade 
training with a final score of 84 percent and completed two FTD 
classes for the T-38 and B-2 egress systems that enabled him to 
complete any task assigned.  He contributes to his community by 
donating blood, volunteering for the Relay for Life and the 
March of Dimes, and contributing to squadron functions.  He is 
also working on his Associates Degree.


In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal 
statement.

His complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A. 

________________________________________________________________
_

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted into the Regular Air Force on 2 Nov 10.

According to the applicant’s AF Form 418, Selective Reenlistment 
Program (SRP) Consideration for Airmen in the Regular Air 
Force/Air Force Reserve, Remarks Section reflects the following:  
He is currently on a Control Roster, Reenlistment Eligibility 
Code 41, he missed appointment, lied to an NCO, failed to go to 
commander directive Viper Fit, second PT failure, failed to 
properly perform a tool box inspection, third PT failure, and 
missed appointment for which he received several Letters of 
Reprimand, Letters of Counseling, a Unfavorable Information file 
was established and he was placed on the Control Roster.

On 4 Mar 13, the applicant’s commander non-selected him for 
reenlistment.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the 
commander’s intent.  He appealed to the commander; however, his 
request was denied.  He received a narrative reason for 
separation of “Non-Retention on Active Duty” and an RE code of 
“2X”.  The applicant received an honorable discharge on 31 May 
13 after serving 2 years, 6 months, and 29 days on active duty.  

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of 
the Air Force, which is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________
_

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial stating that it is clear the 
applicant had numerous disciplinary infractions for which would 
clearly authorize his commander to keep him on the control 
roster.  Furthermore, passing the FA test is not grounds for 
automatic removal from the control roster.  The applicant does 
not provide any proof of an error or injustice with regard to 
his RE code.  His non-selection for retention was processed in 
accordance with current guidance.

The complete 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 30 Aug 13 for review and comment within 30 days.  
As of this date, this office has received no response.

________________________________________________________________
_

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.  The 
applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we are not 
persuaded the applicant has been the victim of an error or 
injustice.  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.  After a 
thorough review of the evidence of record, we believe the RE 
code issued was in accordance with governing instructions.  
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, 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 issue involved.  
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably 
considered.

________________________________________________________________
_

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 AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2013-02525 in Executive Session on 6 Feb 14, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Chair
	, Member
	, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 14 May 13, w/atch.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 30 Jul 13.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Aug 13.




                                   
                                   Chair