AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 
DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-01474 
COUNSEL: NONE 
HEARING DESIRED: NO 

IN THE MATTER OF: 
   
   
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
 
1. Her  commander’s  decision  to  deny  her  reenlistment  be 
overturned. 
 
2. Her letter of reprimand (LOR) dated 2 Mar 12, be rescinded.  
 
3. Her  letters  of  counseling  (LOCs)  dated  7  Sep  11,  and 
3 Nov 11, be rescinded. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
1. Her  supervisor  failed  to  conduct  performance  feedback  in 
accordance  with  (IAW)  AFI  36-2406,  Officer  and  Enlisted 
Evaluation System to discuss her conduct. 
 
2. Her  LOCs  were  not  processed  IAW  AFI  36-2907,  Unfavorable 
Information  File  (UIF)  which  states  “the  person  who  initiates 
the  record  of  individual  counseling  (RIC),  LOC,  letter  of 
admonition  (LOA),  or  LOR  has  three  duty  days  to  advise  the 
individual  of  their  final  decision  regarding  any  comments 
submitted by the individual.” 
 
3. On  12  Mar  12,  her  commander  non-recommended  her  for 
reenlistment; however section III of the AF Form 418,  Selective 
Reenlistment  Program  (SRP)  consideration  for  Airmen  in  the 
Regular  Air  Force/Air  Force  Reserve requires mandatory comments 
when an airmen is non-selected. 
 
4. Her  unit  added  new  documents  to  her  case  file  after  she 
submitted  her  non-selection  for  reenlistment  appeal  package  to 
the military personnel section (MPS).  However, IAW AFI- 36-2606, 
Reenlistments  in  the  United  States  Air  Force  she  was  not  given 
three  workdays  to  rebut  the  new  information  added  to  her  case 
file. 
 
In  support  of  her  request,  the  applicant  provides  a  personal 
statement, copies of character references, AF IMT 102, Inspector 
General  Personal  and  Fraud,  Waste  and  Abuse  Complaint 
Registration; AF Form 1058, Unfavorable Information File Action; 
AF  Form  418,  emails,  LOCs  and  various  other  documentation 
associated with her request.  
 
 
 

1 

The  applicant's  complete  submission,  with  attachments,  is  at 
Exhibit A. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
 
On 12 Mar 12, the applicant’s supervisor initiated an AF Form 418 
and non-recommended her for reenlistment.  Her supervisor stated 
due to multiple disciplinary infractions, she was not conducive 
to  the  Air  Force  way  of  life.    Her  commander  denied  her 
reenlistment request.   
 
On  13  Mar  12,  the  applicant  acknowledged  her  non-selection  and 
invoked her intent to appeal the denial decision.  Reenlistment 
code  (RE)  code  2X,  which  denotes  First-term,  second-term  or 
career airman considered but not selected for reenlistment under 
the  SRP  was  updated  IAW  36-2606,  based  on  her  commander’s 
decision.    The  applicant  filed  an  Inspector  General  (IG) 
complaint  with  the  30  Space  Wing  (30  SW).    The  following 
allegations were analyzed and resolved IAW AFI 90-301, Inspector 
General Complaints Resolution.  
 Allegation 1: Between 27 Feb – 1 Mar 12, the applicant alleged 
that Lieutenant Colonel (Lt Col) Y reprised against her. 
 
The applicant believed Lt Col Y reprised against her because of 
the 27 Feb 12, memo she submitted to him for his consideration 
before he made his decision denying her reenlistment.   
 Finding: NOT SUBSTANTIATED  
 
Allegation 2:  On  2  Mar  12,  the  applicant  alleged  Senior  Master 
Sergeant (SMSgt) O reprised against her.   
 
The  applicant  believed  SMSgt  O  reprised  against  her  because  of 
the  27  Feb  12,  memo  she  submitted  to  Lt  Col  Y  concerning  her 
reenlistment.    She  believes  SMSgt  O  issued  her  a  LOR  on 
2 Mar 12, in reprisal.  The LOR addressed her tardiness to work 
after the monthly wing mandated run. 
 Finding: NOT SUBSTANTIATED  
 
Allegation 3: Between 1 – 12 Mar 12, the applicant alleged that 
Lt Col Y failed to follow the AF IMT 418 process. 
 
The  applicant  believed  Lt  Col  Y  failed  to  follow  the  AF  Form 
418 process  denying  her  the  opportunity  to  appeal  his  decision 
to deny her reenlistment.  
 Finding: NOT SUBSTANTIATED  
 
Allegation 4: The applicant believed Lt Col Y intended to place 
her on a control roster with a six-month observation that would 
 
 

2 

render  her  ineligible  to  reenlist  because  the  six-month 
observation period ended after her date of separation (DOS).   
 
Finding: NOT SUBSTANTIATED  
 
On 21 Mar 12, the applicant submitted her non-recommendation for 
reenlistment appeal to the appeal authority (30 Operations Group 
commander).   
 
On  30  Mar  12,  the  30SW/IG  notified  her  that  an  analysis 
determined  there  were  no  violations  of  any  laws,  policies, 
instructions, etc; therefore, IAW AFI 90-301, her complaint was 
dismissed.    The  IG  stated  her  commander  had  followed  the 
selective  reenlistment  process  and  was  not  placing  her  on  the 
control  roster.    Further,  the  IG  determined  reprisal  did  not 
occur  because  the  memo  she  submitted  to  her  commander  did  not 
meet the criteria to make it a valid protected communication as 
outlined in DoD 7050.06 and AFI 90-301.  
 
On 11 Apr 12, the 30OG/CC denied the applicant’s appeal, stating 
she  has  demonstrated  a  pattern  of  behavior  which  is  not 
consistent with the Air Force’s highest professional standards.  
She acknowledged receipt of the denial of her appeal case.   
 
On  3  Jul  12,  AFPC/DPSOA  requested  the  applicant  provide  the 
documents she contends were added to her appeal package without 
due process.  On 24 Jul 12, in response to DPSOA’s request, she 
stated after submitting her appeal package to the Force Support 
Squadron,  she  inquired  about  the  status  and  was  informed  her 
unit  had  provided  additional  documentation  (i.e.  LOC,  dated 
7 Sep  11,  LOC,  dated  3  Nov  11,  and  a  LOR,  dated  2  Mar  12)  to 
legal  for  their  recommendation  to  the  group  commander.    The 
applicant  states  she  was  not  permitted  to  review  the 
recommendation from the 30 SW legal office for reasons unknown.  
 
On 11 Aug 12, the applicant was honorably discharged due to her 
non-selection  for  reenlistment;  with  an  RE  code  of  2X  and  a 
Separation  Code  of  JBK,  which  denotes  Completion  of  Required 
Active Service.  She served four years of total active service.  
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
AFPC/DPSIMC  recommends  denial  of  the  applicant’s  request  to 
remove her LOCs dated 7 Sep 11, and 3 Nov 11, and her LOR dated 
2 Mar 12, from her records.  DPSIMC states that per AFI 36-2907, 
commanders,  supervisors,  and  other  persons  in  authority  can 
issue  administrative  counselings,  admonitions  and  reprimands.  
Further,  DPSIMC  validated  the  LOCs  and  LOR  were  processed  IAW 
AFI 36-2907.   
 
The complete DPSIMC evaluation is at Exhibit C. 
 
 
 

3 

AFPC/DPSOA  recommends  denial  of  the  applicant’s  request  to 
change  her  reenlistment  (RE)  code.    DPSOA  states  the  applicant 
did not provide any evidence of an error or injustice pertaining 
to her denial of reenlistment appeal processing.  LOCs/LORs are 
always  included  as  “any  other  pertinent  information”  in  appeal 
packages.    Additionally,  legal  reviews  are  not  considered  new 
information IAW AFI 36-2606.   
 
The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit D. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
Copies  of  the  Air  Force  evaluations  were  forwarded  to  the 
applicant  on  7  Sep  12,  for  review  and  comment  within  30 days 
(Exhibit  E).    As  of  this  date,  this  office  has  not  received  a 
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 error or injustice.  We took notice 
of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of 
the  case;  however,  we  are  not  persuaded  the  applicant  has  been 
the victim of an error or injustice.  Therefore, we agree with 
the  opinions  and  recommendations  of  the  Air  Force  offices  of 
primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for 
our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an 
error or injustice.  We note, the applicant alleges she has been 
the  victim  of  reprisal;  however,  after  review  of  the  evidence 
presented, we find no evidence of reprisal and are not persuaded 
her  commander’s  actions  were  improper,  or  that  he  abused  his 
discretionary  authority  in  this  matter.    In  view  of  the  above 
and 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. 
 
 

4 

  
  
  

 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
The  following  members  of  the  Board  considered  Docket  Number    
BC-2012-01474  in  Executive  Session  on  15  Jan  13,  under  the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 
 
 
Panel Chair 
 
Member 
 
Member 
 
The following documentary evidence was considered: 
 
    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 Apr 12, w/atchs. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. 
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIMC, dated 29 May 12.  
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 21 Aug 12. 
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Sep 12. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
Panel Chair 

  
  

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

5