RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-02703

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO 


________________________________________________________________

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 to allow him 
to reenlist in the Air Force, a reserve component, or another 
service.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

In December 2012, he accepted punishment under Article 15 and 
received a suspended reduction.  As a result, he was denied 
reenlistment and separated under the Fiscal Year 2013 (FY13) 
Date of Separation Rollback Program.  His misconduct was not a 
representation of his enlistment and his denial of reenlistment 
was not warranted.

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 24 Nov 08.

On 14 Dec 12, the applicant received an Article 15 for 
dereliction in the performance of his duties by failing to 
attend the Motorcycle Safety Course, in violation of Article 92 
of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).  As a result, 
his punishment consisted of a suspended reduction to the grade 
of airman first class (E-3) for six months and forfeiture of 
$990 pay.  

On 19 Dec 12, the applicant appealed the punishment and on 
20 Dec 12, the appeal was granted in part and that portion of 
the forfeitures in excess of $495 pay was suspended for six 
months.
On 19 Mar 13, the applicant’s commander non-selected him for 
reenlistment.  In doing so, the commander indicated the 
applicant was serving a suspended punishment pursuant to an 
Article 15 imposed in December 2012.

On 21 Mar 13, the applicant acknowledged receipt and on the same 
date, rendered an intent to appeal the commander’s decision.  
The applicant had until 1 Apr 13 to submit his appeal but failed 
to do so by the required date.

On 31 May 13, the applicant was furnished an honorable 
discharge, with a RE code of 2X, and was credited with four 
years, six months, and seven 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 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 and his non-selection for reenlistment was in accordance 
with current guidance.  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 SRP considers the 
member’s 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 indicates he had a one-time 
deviation from standards; however, in addition to his Article 
15, he also had a referral EPR for failing to meet physical 
fitness standards.  The applicant was in his reenlistment window 
but was denied reenlistment, which required him to separate 
under the rollback guidance.

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

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant indicates that while conducting the run portion of 
his physical fitness test, he started feeling faint and began to 
vomit uncontrollably.  The staff recommended that he cease the 
test immediately and seek medical attention.  They also informed 
him that he had three duty days to bring the medical 
documentation to his Unit Training Manager (UTM).  Immediately 
upon completing the test, he went to urgent care and was 
diagnosed with Acid Reflux and was prescribed medication.  He 
turned in all of the documentation to his UTM; however, 
unbeknownst to him, she was on leave at the time.  While the UTM 
was on leave, his EPR closed out and he received a referral 
report as well as a Letter of Counseling (LOC) documenting the 
fitness failure.  The applicant has provided copies of the 
medical documentation annotating his condition as well as a copy 
of the LOC for the Board’s consideration (Exhibit E).

________________________________________________________________

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 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 of injustice.  
While we note the comments of the applicant in response to the 
advisory opinion describing the circumstances surrounding his 
fitness failure, the fitness failure was not part of the basis 
for the denial of reenlistment.  The applicant’s arguments are 
duly noted; however, we do not find the evidence he has provided 
sufficient to conclude that the Article 15 punishment or the 
commander’s subsequent decision to deny him reenlistment were 
arbitrary or capricious, disproportionate to the circumstances, 
or represented an injustice when compared to those similarly 
situated.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the 
contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested 
relief.

________________________________________________________________

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-2013-02703 in Executive Session on 6 Mar 14, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	                , Panel Chair
	                , Member
	                , Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 May 13.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 8 Jul 13.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Aug 13.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, undated, w/atchs.




                                   
                                   Panel Chair
                                    

4