AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS $AN 29
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NUMBER: 9 7 - 0 2 8 1 7
COUNSEL: None
HEARING DESIRED: NO
Applicant requests recoupment of her Special Separation Bonus
(SSB) and/or return to active duty. Applicant's submission is at
Exhibit A.
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) .
Applicant's response to the advisory opinions is at Exhibit E.
After noting applicant's response to the advisory opinions
(Exhibit E), on 2 0 Mar 98, the applicant was requested to provide
more specific information regarding exactly what correction she
was seeking to her military records (Exhibit F ) .
Applicant
provided a three-page letter (Exhibit G), dated 5 May 98;
however, it still is unclear exactly what correction she is
requesting.
In view of the foregoing and after careful consideration of her
request and the available evidence of record, we are agreeing
with the advisory opinions and assuming this is the relief sought
in her application. In view of the above, and 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 Ms. Martha Maust, Ms. Patricia D. Vestal,
and Mr. Frederick A. Beaman, 111, considered this application on
15 December 1998 in accordance with the provisions of Air Force
Instruction 36-2603, and the governing statute, 10, U.S.C. 1552.
Exhibits :
A. Applicant's DD Form 149
B. Available Master Personnel Records
C. Advisory Opinions
D.
E. Applicant's Response
F. AFBCMR Ltr
G. Applicant's Ltr
AFBCMR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinions
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant’s request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). 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 records indicate member’s military service was reviewed and appropriate action was taken.
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). This provides members who are discharged for physical disqualification the opportunity to reenter military service if their medical condition is no longer d i s q u w See H AFRCRSOO Memorandum at Attachment 1 .) s a not eligible for a medical retirement with pay because her disqualifjing medical 3. m condition was found to not have...
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 provided by the AFBCMR Medical Consultant, 15 Jun 98 gives information concerning applicant’s medical condition at the time of her enlistment. Commander advised that if the recommendation for discharge is approved, her discharge would be described as an entry level separation and she will be ineligible for reenlistment...
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). Available Master Personnel Records C. Advisory Opinions D. SAF/MIBR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinions D E P A R T M E N T OF THE A I R FORCE HEADQUARTERS.. AIR FORCE PERSONNEL CENTER RANDOLPH AIR FORCE BASE TEXAS MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR ~ FROM: HQ AFPC/DPPRS 550 C Street West Ste 1 1 Randolph AFB TX 781 50-4713 ;JuN 2 4 398 The...
A copy of the Record of Proceedings is attached at Exhibit C. The appropriate Defense Finance and Accounting Service off ice evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit D). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit E). requested .
Noting the rater’s statement of support, DPPPA stated the rater indicates he decided to change his evaluation and overall rating based on “performance feedback that was not available during the time of her rating considerations and post discussions with one of her past supervisors.” The rater has not stated what he knows now that he did not know when the original EPR was prepared. Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit...
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS JUL 2 4 IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO: 97-03239 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No Applicant requests her entry level separation be changed to an honorable discharge. The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). Applicant's response to the advisory opinions is at Exhibit E. After careful consideration of...
The applicant voluntarily requested early separation from the Air Force by submitting an AF Form 3 1 which indicated her reason for requesting early separation was miscellaneous reason. However, with the applicant’s desire to separate 01 Jan 98 (as indicated in her application), she still would not have been eligible for a separation “to attend school” because her normal expiration term of service (ETS) was 980328, more than 90 days allowed by Air Force Instructions. The Air Force approved...
They state it appears the applicant's evaluators took their rating responsibilities seriously, and rated her appropriately in not only their evaluation of her performance but in their promotion recommendation when they compared her with others of the same grade and Air Force specialty. Applicant states the contested report is inconsistent With performance feedback she received during the period covered by the report. It appears the applicant’s evaluators took their rating responsibilities...
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 #...