RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03632
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) be changed to reflect the correct RE code.
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His RE code is incorrect for the type of discharge he received. He is being punished with the current enlistment code.
The applicants complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 12 May 2004.
On 20 October 2009, the applicant received non-judicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The reason for the action was failure to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty, without authority being absent from his unit, and making a false official statement. His commander imposed punishment consisting of reduced to the grade of Airman First Class (E-3) suspended through 19 April 2010, 7 days extra duty, and a Reprimand.
On 21 January 2010, the applicant received a Referral Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) for comments related to the aforementioned Article 15, and failure to meet minimum fitness standards.
On 31 August 2010, the applicant was furnished an honorable discharge, with a narrative reason for separation of Completion of Required Active Service, along with a separation program designator (SPD) code of LBK and RE code of 2X. He was credited with 6 years, 3 months, and 19 days of active service.
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C.
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial. The applicant was discharged under the Fiscal Year 2010 Air Forces Force Shaping Date of Separation (DOS) Rollback Program. In accordance with AFI 36-2606, Reenlistment in the USAF, commanders have selective reenlistment selection or non-selection authority. The Selective Reenlistment Program (SRP) considers the members Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) ratings, unfavorable information from any substantiated source, the airmans willingness to comply with Air Force standards and/or the airmans ability (or lack of) to meet required training and duty performance levels. Although there is not an Air Force IMT 418, Selective Reenlistment Program Consideration, in the applicants record denying him reenlistment, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (absent evidence to the contrary) and as such all government officials are presumed to have exercised their duties in accordance with the governing law and established procedures. The applicants record shows evidence of disciplinary infractions that support his denial of reenlistment. Although he feels his RE code is incorrect for his type of discharge, he provides no proof of an error or injustice. In this case, the applicants RE code is correct based on being non-selected for reenlistment under the SRP.
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit C.
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 9 February 2015 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 not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.
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.
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-2014-03632 in Executive Session on 28 April 2015 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Panel Chair
Member
Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 27 August 2014, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 20 November 2014.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 February 2015.
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 | CY2014 | BC 2014 02503
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02503 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The reentry (RE) code of 2X (1st term, 2nd term or career airman considered but not selected for reenlistment) on her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be changed to allow her to reenter the military. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00594
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00594 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Separation Program Designator (SPD) code and his Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed. On 11 Feb 13, the applicant was notified by his commander of his non-selection for reenlistment under the Selective Reenlistment Program (SRP). A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 03107
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. The applicants record also contains a Memo for Record (MFR), dated 26 Feb 07, stating that he had previously been reenlistment eligible but due to new derogatory information he was now being...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01281
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01281 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Separation Program Designator (SPD) code LGH (Non- retention on active duty) is inaccurate and unjust. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandums prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibits C and D. AIR...
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 | CY2014 | BC 2014 03842
According to the applicants AF Form 418, Selective Reenlistment Program (SRP) Consideration for Airmen in the Regular Air Force/Air Force Reserve, dated 17 Nov 11, he was non-recommended for re-enlistment by his supervisor as a result of a quality force review conducted IAW the FY12 Enlisted DOS Rollback PDSM 11-94. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04879
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-04879 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Reentry (RE) code 2X (First-term, second-term or career airman considered but not selected for reenlistment under the Selective Reenlistment Program (SRP)) be changed to a 1 series. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01804
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01804 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of 2X (First-term, second-term or career airman considered but not selected for reenlistment under the Selective Reenlistment Program) be changed so he may reenter the military. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum...
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...