AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD O F IRaCEEDINGS
IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NO: 98-01224
COUNSEL :
HEARING DESIRED: NO
DEE 4w
Applicant requests that her separation code (SPD) of MND
(Voluntary-Miscellaneous/General Reasons) be changed to JBM
(Insufficient Retainability) on her DD Form 214. Applicant's
submission is at Exhibit A.
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request
and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the
application be denied (Exhibit C). T h e advisory opinion was
forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D).
Applicant's response to the advisory opinion is at Exhibit E.
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 facts and
opinions stated in the advisory opinion appear to be based on the
evidence of record and have not been adequately 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 existin2 recm-d.
Accordingly, applicant's request is denied.
The Board staff is directed to inform applicant of Lhis decision.
Applicant should also be informed t h a t this decision is final and
will only be reconsidered upon t h e presentation of: new relevant
evidence which was not reasonably available at the time the
application was filed.
Members of the Board MY. Michael F . Higgins, Mr. Steven A. Shaw,
and Ms. Ann L. Heidig considered this application on 6 October
1998 in accordance with the provisions of Air Force Instruction
36-2603, and the governing statute, 10, U.S.C. 1552.
Panel Chair
Exhibits :
A. Applicant's DD Form 149
B. Available Master Personnel Records
C. Advisory Opinion
D.
E
SAF/MIBR Ltr Forwarding Adviso1-I. Opinion
Applicant's Response
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). Available Master Personnel Records C. Advisory Opinion D. SAF/MIBR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinion D E P A R T M E N T O F T H E A I R F O R C E H E A D Q U A R T E R S AIR FORCE P E R S O N N E L C E N T E R R A N D O L P H AIR FORCE B A S E...
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). Consistent with his findings, the evaluation officer recommended discharge with a general discharge certificate. The records indicate member's military service was reviewed and appropriate action was taken.
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-01185 SEP 2 9 1998 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES Applicant requests that (1) her Calendar Year 1998 (CY981 Lieutenant Colonel, Nurse Corp, Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) be replaced with a new PRF and (2) she be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by Special Selection Board (SSB) for the CY98 Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board. The appropriate Air...
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS JUL 1 4 IN THE MATTER OF: rn COUNSEL: NONE DOCKET NUMBER: 97-03526 HEARING DESIRED: NO Applicant requests that the Officer Selection Brief reviewed by the Calendar Year (CY) 1997C (16 June 1997) Major Promotion Board be amended under the Assignment History section to reflect Duty Air Force Specialty Code (DAFSC) 36P4 versus 3384 on the 15 May 1996 entry, and that she be considered for promotion by Special Selection...
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant’s request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The applicant is requesting the AFBCMR void her Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) closing 23 Oct 94. In the applicant’s response dated 17 Nov 94 to the referral EPR, she states that she realizes that ‘she has a lot of reprimands in her Personal Information File (PIF) and didn’t consider herself ready for promotion.’ She also states...
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) . RECOMMENDATION: None; -oes not have the required time on active duty to qualify for educational benefits through the Department of Veterans Affairs. The applicant is requesting her DD Form 214 to state that her discharge was for the good of the government.
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). Implementation Guidance dated 7 Mar 96, stipulated that members eligible for SGLI under section 1967 (a)(l)-(2) of title 38, United States Code, on 31 Mar 96 with continued eligibility on 1 Apr 96, would have their SGLI increased to $200,000 effective 1 Apr 96, regardless of any prior election. Members who failed to complete 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 office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C ) . The discharge authority approved the recommendation for discharge on 27 Oct 72 and directed that the applicant be fbrnished an undesirable discharge certificate without probation and rehabilitation. The records indicate member’s military service was reviewed and appropriate action was taken.