aT 0 9 19%
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RE D OF PROCEEDINGS
IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NUMBER: 97-01585
COUNSEL: None
HEARING, DESIRED: No
Applicant requests that her general discharge be upgraded to
honorable; the reason for her separation be changed to entry
level or administrative; and, her reenlistment eligibility (RE)
code be changed so that she may reenlist. Applicant's submission
is at Exhibit A.
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's requests
and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the
application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinions were
forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D).
As of this date, no response has been received by this office.
After careful consideration of applicant's requests and the
available evidence of record, we find insufficient evidence of
error or injustice to warrant corrective action. The facts and
opinions stated in the advisory opinions appear to be based on
the evidence of record and have not been rebutted by applicant.
Absent persuasive evidence applicant was denied rights to which
entitled, appropriate regulations were not followed, or
appropriate standards were not applied, we find no basis to
disturb the existing record.
Accordingly, applicant's request is denied.
The Board staff is directed to inform applicant of this decision.
Applicant should also be informed that this decision is final and
will only be reconsidered upon the presentation of new relevant
evidence which was not reasonably available at the time the
application was filed.
Members of the Board Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Mr. Richard A.
Peterson, and Mr. Patrick R. Wheeler considered this application
on 29 September 1998 in accordance with the provisions of Air
Force Instruction 36-2603, and the governing statute, 10, U.S.C.
1552.
Exhibits:
Panel Chair
A. Applicant's DD Form 149
B. Available Master Personnel Records
C. Advisory Opinions
D. AFBCMR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinions
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinions were forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). The facts and opinions stated in the advisory opinions appear to be based on the evidence of record and have not been adequately rebutted by applicant.
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). After careful consideration of applicant's request and the available evidence of record, we find insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant corrective action.
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's requests and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinions were forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). The facts and opinions stated in the advisory opinions appear to be based on the evidence of record and have not been rebutted by applicant.
On 14 Dec 87, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied the applicant’s request for upgrade of her general discharge to honorable and change of her reenlistment (RE) code. The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). Applicant's response to the advisory opinion is at Exhibit E. After careful consideration of applicant's request and the...
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant’s request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). Contrary to what the applicant states in her request, the "2Q" code was not assigned simply to prevent her immediate reenlistment, but rather to reflect the fact that she was separated with an unfitting medical condition under provisions of AFR 35-4 and the disability evaluation sys- tem. Page 2 AFBCMR Case #...
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinions were forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). The facts and opinions stated in the advisory opinion appear to be based on the evidence of record and have not been rebutted by applicant.
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). The facts and opinions stated in the advisory opinion appear to be based on the evidence of record and have not been rebutted by applicant.
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). After careful consideration of applicant's request and the available evidence of record, we find insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant corrective action.
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinions were forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). The facts and opinions stated in the advisory opinions appear to be based on the evidence of record and have not been rebutted by applicant.
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinions were forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). Accordingly, applicant's request is denied.