RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03173
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed so she may
reenlist.
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The record is unjust because there are no negative remarks
supporting the RE status in her records. She provides numerous
character reference letters supporting her application.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 20 Dec 07, the applicant entered the Air Force Reserves.
On 14 Jul 13, the applicants unit commander and supervisor
signed a Selective Retention Process form designating her
potential, motivation, derogatory information, and other related
factors as reasons for her non-selection for reenlistment.
On 23 Jul 13, the applicants unit commander and supervisor
recommended the applicant not be considered for reenlistment
through the Selective Reenlistment Program (SRP) as annotated on
the AF Form 418, Selective Reenlistment Program (SRP)
consideration for Airmen in the Regular Air Force/ Air Force
Reserve.
On 26 Aug 13, she acknowledged receipt of the official
notification of non-selection for reenlistment and indicated her
intent to appeal the decision.
On 24 Nov 13, her appeal was denied and found legally
sufficient.
On 31 Dec 13, she acknowledged receipt of the appeal denial
decision.
On 20 Jan 14, according to Reserve Order A-0046 she received an
honorable discharge with a Reserve RE code of 5E.
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFRC/A1K recommends disapproval indicating the RE status code 5E
reported on her discharge order is the correct code. She was
denied reenlistment in compliance with AFI 36-2612, United
States Air Force Reserve (USAFR) Reenlistment and Retention
Program. The applicants Selective Retention Process form
documents her squadron commanders decision to deny reenlistment
along with the reasons for that denial. Her AF Form 418 shows
that she was able to appeal the decision, that the results of
the appeal received a legal review and that she acknowledged the
results.
The complete A1K 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 17 Feb 15 for review and comment within 30 days
(Exhibit D). As of this date, no response has been received by
this office.
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 applicants 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.
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find
no basis to recommend granting the requested relief.
4. The applicants 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 issues involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably
considered.
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 documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket
Number BC-2014-03173 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 22 Jun 14, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFRC/A1K, dated 30 Jan 15.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Feb 15.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00419
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-00419 INDEX CODE: 100.03, 100.06 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 13 AUG 2007 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The AF Form 418, Selective Reenlistment Program Consideration, dated 8 August 2005, be removed from her records and her Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed to allow her...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02111
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02111 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) Code of 2X meaning 1st term, 2nd term or career airman considered but not selected for reenlistment, be changed to a code allowing reentry in the Service. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-01474
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2006-00561
On 4 Oct 05, the applicant’s commander notified her via an AF Form 286A, “Notification of Nuclear Weapons Personnel Reliability Program Permanent Decertification/Disqualification Action,” he was concurring with the recommendation of the medical authority to permanently decertify her from the PRP. Air Force Form 418, dated 29 Sep 04, which indicates she was selected for reenlistment just 13 months prior to the AF Form 418 dated 28 Oct 05 denying her reenlistment. After reviewing the...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01103
On 23 May 12, his supervisor signed the AF IMT 418, Selective Reenlistment Program (SRP) Consideration for Airmen in the Regular Air Force/Air Force Reserve, indicating he was not recommending him for reenlistment due to his duty performance and multiple disciplinary issues. On 14 May 12, his supervisor presented him with an AF IMT 1058, Unfavorable Information File Action, notifying him that he intended to place him on the control roster for his duty performance and multiple disciplinary...
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 03463
He was notified the control roster action automatically placed him on the FY13 Rollback Program. He contacted the Separations office at Joint Base San Antonio (JBSA) Randolph to correct this issue, but they were unable to manually change separation code on DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, because the automatic LGH separation code was loaded in their system. On 15 Jul 13, the applicant was separated under the FY13 DOS Rollback Program, with a RE code of 2X;...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01413
A review of her EPR’s reflects that her promotion recommendation during two performance reporting periods was 2 – “Not recommended for promotion at this time” and a third EPR of 3 – “Consider.” On 22 December 1993, her commander concurred with the non-recommendation of her supervisor and denied her reenlistment. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04795
Her record be corrected to reflect that she was selected for the position of Director, Reserve Active Guard/Reserve (AGR) Management Office (REAMO) effective Jan 09. As to a violation of Title 10 USC 1034b, the applicant appears to have the opinion that she was the only qualified applicant and would have been selected but for reprisal by the Deputy AF/RE substantiated in the SAF/IGS ROI. AF/JAA states that the applicant was not the only AGR who was the top candidate for the Director, REAMO...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02153
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFRC/A1K recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. ________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number...