AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02475
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
IN THE MATTER OF:
_________________
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His reentry (RE) code of “2C – First-term, second-term, or career
airman considered but not selected for reenlistment under the SRP
[Selective Reenlistment Program],” be changed to “1A - Fully
qualified for enlistment.”
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The RE code he received is unjust. He was honorably discharged
and needs his RE code changed so he can enlist in the Marine
Corps. The RE code he received was as a result of not being
selected for reenlistment due to cutbacks in the Air Force.
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant was honorably discharged on 31 March 2012 under the
Air Force Shaping Rollback Program after serving 1 year,
7 months, and 28 days on active duty. He was identified as
eligible for the rollback based on a suspended Article 15
punishment. The applicant was non-recommended for reenlistment
by his supervisor, and was subsequently non-selected for
reenlistment by his commander on 8 November 2011. The applicant
acknowledged his non-selection and rendered his intent not to
appeal the decision; however, he did submit an appeal package.
The applicant’s commander stated his actions negatively impacted
the lives of three other airmen and had a long lasting negative
affect with his unit’s team building. His DD Form 214 reflects
an RE code of “2X.”
________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial. DPSOA states the applicant does
not provide any proof of an error or injustice in reference to
his RE code. He states that he was eligible to reenlist but was
not selected due to Air Force cut-backs. However, he was not
selected for reenlistment and identified as eligible for the AF
Force Shaping Rollback Program based on the suspended Article 15
punishment he was serving. Regardless of the rollback, the
applicant’s commander would have had to select or non-select him
for reenlistment when his current ineligibility condition
(suspended non-judicial punishment) expired. All the rollback
eligibility did was to give the commander the ability to make the
decision to select or non-select the applicant for reenlistment
at an earlier point.
The applicant requests an RE code of “1A,” Fully qualified for
enlistment; however, Air Force Instruction 36-2606, Chapter 5,
states not to separate members in the RE code 1# series except
for “1J,” Eligible to reenlist, but elects separation. (All
airmen selected under the SRP and elect separation are given RE
code “1J.”) The applicant cannot be awarded an RE code of “1J”
as he was denied reenlistment by his commander under the SRP.
The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
He received an Article 15 under false pretenses. He was accused
of wrongful sexual contact from three airmen that he worked with.
He has never done any of the actions he was accused of by the
three airmen. He believes the investigation was never completed
correctly since they only interviewed the witness that encouraged
one of the airmen to accuse him. One airman testified that his
wife was a witness to his actions, but his wife was never
questioned. If the investigation had been completed correctly,
he would not be in this situation.
Along with his rebuttal, the applicant provides a letter of
support from his wife and his rebuttal letters to the charges
against him.
The applicant’s complete rebuttal, with attachments, is at
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
2
of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its
rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has
not been the victim of an error or injustice. The applicant’s
comments concerning the propriety of the Article 15 are noted;
however, he provides no corroborative evidence to support his
contentions. Moreover, he has not provided substantial evidence
that but for the Article 15 he would have been selected for
reenlistment. Therefore, 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.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket
Number BC-2012-02475 in Executive Session on 21 February 2013,
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
The following documentary evidence was considered in connection
with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-02475:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 29 May 12, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 11 Jul 12.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Aug 12.
Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 14 Aug 12, w/atchs.
____________________, Chair
____________________, Member
____________________, Member
Chair
3
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04621
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application extracted from the applicants military personnel records are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate Air Force office of primary responsibility at Exhibit C. ______________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 1. The applicant's supervisor non-recommended her on an AF IMT 418, Selective Reenlistment Program Consideration on 22 Feb 2011 listing numerous disciplinary infractions and her...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 01220
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 | CY2012 | BC 2012 05892
AFI 36-2606, Reenlistment in the USAF, states commanders have selective reenlistment selection or nonselection authority. 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 that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02165
On 16 Jun 10, the applicants supervisor non-recommended him for reenlistment and, on the same day, the applicants commander non-selected him for reenlistment. 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 05961
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-05961 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Reentry (RE) code of 2X (Career airman considered but not selected for reenlistment under the Selective Reenlistment Program), as reflected on his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be changed to allow him to...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC 2012 05961
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-05961 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Reentry (RE) code of 2X (Career airman considered but not selected for reenlistment under the Selective Reenlistment Program), as reflected on his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be changed to allow him to...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-02787
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02787 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ______________________________________________________________ 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 his reentry into the military. On 17 Feb 2011, the...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04992
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 applicants discharge was correctly administered on the basis of his RE code of 2X (denied...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 05487
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. The applicants 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00165
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-00165 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO IN THE MATTER OF: ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her reentry (RE) code of 2X (First-term, second-term, or career airman considered but not selected for reenlistment under the Selective Reenlistment Program (SRP)) be changed to 1M (Eligible to reenlist, second-term or career airmen not yet...