Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05829
Original file (BC 2013 05829.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-05829
	 XXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL: NONE
			HEARING DESIRED: YES


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 
him reentry into the Air Force.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He realizes that there was no error or injustice in the 
processing of his discharge.  

During his service in the Air Force, he was cited for Driving 
Under the Influence (DUI) and placed on the roll back list, 
which led to his honorable discharge.  While he is grateful for 
the service characterization, he wants to serve his country and 
the RE code prevents him from doing so.  He implores the Board 
to consider his request.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 14 July 2009, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air 
Force.

On 9 February 2012, the applicant’s commander notified him that 
she was recommending he be demoted to the grade of airman (E-2) 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2502, Airman Promotion/Demotion 
Programs.  The specific reasons for this action was that on or 
about 4 June 2011, he was arrested for DUI and drinking alcohol 
under the age of 21.

On 9 February 2012, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the 
demotion notification and on 14 February 2012, he concurred with 
the proposed demotion and presented statements in his behalf.

On 28 February 2012, the approval authority directed the 
applicant be demoted to the grade of airman with an effective 
date of 6 March 2012.  The applicant did not appeal this 
decision.

On 24 May 2012, via AF Form 418, Selective Reenlistment Program 
Consideration for Airmen in the Regular Air Force/Air Force 
Reserve, the applicant was notified by his commander that she 
was not recommending him for reenlistment in the Air Force.  Her 
reason for this action was the applicant’s conduct did not meet 
the standards expected of an airman in the United States Air 
Force.

On 29 May 2012, the applicant acknowledged receipt of his non-
selection for reenlistment and indicated that he did intend to 
appeal this decision; however, no appeal was annotated on the AF 
Form 418.

On 19 June 2012, the applicant was offered an Article 15 because 
he violated a lawful general order, to wit: “General Order 
Prohibiting the Use and Possession of Salvia, Spice, and Bath 
Salts,” by wrongfully possessing and smoking a botanical incense 
or herbal mixture commonly known as Spice.  He also violated 
Article 112, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), by 
wrongfully using marijuana.

On 25 June 2012, the applicant received punishment under Article 
15, in the form of a reprimand and demotion to the grade of 
airman basic (E-1), with an effective date of 25 June 2012.

On 29 September 2012, the applicant was honorably discharged 
from the Air Force in the grade of airman basic (E-1), with a RE 
Code of 2X.  His narrative reason for separation was “Completion 
of Required Active Service.”


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial.  The applicant did not provide any 
evidence of an error or injustice that occurred in the discharge 
processing.  He was separated under the Fiscal Year 2012 Air 
Force Shaping Rollback Program.  According to AFI 36-2606, 
Reenlistment in the United States Air Force, commanders have 
selective reenlistment selection or non-selection authority.  
The commander considers the airman’s performance reports, 
unfavorable information from any substantiated source, the 
airman’s willingness to comply with Air Force standards and/or 
the airman’s ability to meet required training and duty 
performance levels.  The applicant’s discharge was correctly 
administered on the basis of his RE code of 2X.

The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C.




APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 17 February 2014, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was 
forwarded to the applicant 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 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.

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(s) 
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 BC-2013-
05829 in Executive Session on 12 November 2014, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

       , Panel Chair
       , Member
       , Member



Due to the unavailability of XXXXXXXXXX, XXXXXXXXXX will sign as 
Acting Panel Chair.  The following documentary evidence 
pertaining to AFBCMR BC-2013-05829 was considered:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 18 November 2013.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 27 January 2014.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 February 2014.





 

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 05829

    Original file (BC 2012 05829.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-05829 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reentry (RE) code of 2X (career airman considered but not selected for reenlistment) on his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be changed to 1J (eligible to reenlist but elected to separate). The remaining relevant...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC 2012 05829

    Original file (BC 2012 05829.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-05829 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reentry (RE) code of 2X (career airman considered but not selected for reenlistment) on his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be changed to 1J (eligible to reenlist but elected to separate). The remaining relevant...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01988

    Original file (BC 2014 01988.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Any duty that requires him to report his arrest for DUI violates his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. On 10 Oct 12, the applicant’s commander issued him an LOR for failing to report his arrest to his security officer as required by DoD Regulation 5200.2-R, paragraph C9.1.4. On 11 Mar 13, in response to a request from the applicant, his referral EPR was amended to remove reference to the DUI, however, the EPR remained an overall “3” based upon the applicant’s failure to...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 01220

    Original file (BC 2013 01220.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-01220 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reentry (RE) code of 2X (1st term, 2nd term or career airman considered but not selected for reenlistment under the selective reenlistment program (SRP)) and separation program designator (SPD) code of JBK (expiration of term of service) be changed...

  • 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-2012-04992

    Original file (BC-2012-04992.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 9 May 2012, the applicant submitted an additional response to his denial of reenlistment and demotion action because he indicated that he just received the ROI. On 19 September 2012, by authority of the Secretary of the Air Force, his 3 August 2012 request for redress filed under Article 138 was denied as the actions taken by the command were determined to be appropriate to the circumstances. The applicant’s discharge was correctly administered on the basis of his RE code of 2X (denied...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00157

    Original file (BC 2014 00157.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00157 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Reentry (RE) code of 2X, which denotes "First Term, Second Term, or Career Airman nonselected for reenlistment” be changed to allow him to enlist in the Air National Guard (ANG). According to AF Form 418, dated 8 May 2013, the applicant was notified by his commander that he was not recommending him...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00931

    Original file (BC 2014 00931.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00931 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be corrected to reflect the following: 1. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the memoranda prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are included at Exhibits C and D. AIR...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-03965

    Original file (BC-2012-03965.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 17 Jul 1995, the applicant was notified by his commander that he was not recommending him for reenlistment in the Air Force. DPSOR states that the applicant did not provide any evidence of an error or injustice that occurred in the discharge processing. Based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge to include his separation code was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the discretion...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 03965

    Original file (BC 2012 03965.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 17 Jul 1995, the applicant was notified by his commander that he was not recommending him for reenlistment in the Air Force. DPSOR states that the applicant did not provide any evidence of an error or injustice that occurred in the discharge processing. Based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge to include his separation code was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the discretion...