RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02988 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

1. His Separation Program Designator (SPD) of “JBK” (completion 
of required active service – denied reenlistment – one half 
separation pay) on his National Guard Bureau (NGB) Form 22, be 
changed to “LBK,” (completion of required active service – 
denied reenlistment – one half separation pay). 

 

2. His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 6U (ANG not 
selected for retention by the commander) be changed to RE1 
(eligible for reenlistment). 

 

3. His separation pay be paid in full. 

 

4. His AF Form 469, Duty Limiting Condition Report, dated 
3 Jan 11, be removed. 

 

5. His Form 600, Chronological Record of Medical Care, dated 
5 Jan 11, be removed. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He was not recommended for reenlistment which resulted in his 
separation from active duty and the Air National Guard. Because 
of his SPD codes he did not receive full separation pay. 

 

He was not properly notified of non-recommendation for 
reenlistment in accordance with the governing directives. His 
commander’s nonrecommendation for reenlistment was based on 
incidents that happen prior to his reenlistment. 

 

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a personal 
statement and a copy of his request for congressional 
assistance. 

 

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit A. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 


 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

Prior to the events under review, the applicant reenlisted in 
the Air National Guard, on 22 Apr 10, for a period of one year. 

 

On 16 Aug 10, the squadron commander notified the applicant that 
he was not recommending him for reenlistment or continuation in 
the Active Duty Guard Reserve (AGR) program. 

 

On 20 Apr 11, the applicant was honorably released from active 
duty with a reason for separation – completion of AGR military 
duty tour and a reentry code 6U. He was credited with 4 years, 
11 months, and 29 days of active duty during this period. 

 

On 21 Apr 11, the applicant was discharged from the ANG and as a 
Reserve of the Air Force, with a reason for separation of not 
selected for reenlistment- expiration term of service and a 
reentry code of 6U. He was credited with 17 years, 6 months, 
and 19 days of service for retired pay and 23 years, 6 months, 
and 23 days of total service for pay. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

NGB/A1PS recommends denial, stating, in part, that while the 
documentation indicates the SPD code on his NGB 22 was JBK and 
the code on his DD 214 was LBK, both codes are correct. 
Particularly, because JBK is the separation code for ANG members 
being discharged from active duty and LBK is the code used when 
a member is released from active duty. Based on his separation 
from active duty, the code on the DD 214 should be used for pay 
calculation purposes as opposed to the code on the NGB 22. 

 

However, A1PS recommends the applicant contact DFAS and submit 
his DD 214 for the purpose of re-determining his separation pay 
as well as any other administrative errors noted. 

 

The complete NGB/A1PS evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

He disagrees with the NGB opinion and contends that LBK may not 
be available due to the fact an AGR entered into the career 
program cannot be released if fully qualified for retention. 
This is a requirement in ANGI 36-101, para 7.2. Reenlistments/Extensions, which states, enlisted AGRs who are 
granted continuation as a result of the AGR Continuation Board 
(ACB) or are extended on their AGR tour are authorized to 
reenlist or extend to support the retainability requirement 
regardless of their current ETS. 


 

The applicant provided additional statements and documentation 
to substantiate that he was not recommended for reenlistment in 
accordance with the governing directives; was not given feedback 
properly; and not given appropriate separation pay. 

 

He notes that all of the incidents used as a basis for denying 
reenlistment happened prior to his reenlistment on 22 Apr 10. 

 

In addition, certain medical documents listed in his service 
medical record appear to be erroneous and he does not believe 
that those documents belong in his record. 

 

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit E. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 error or injustice. We took notice 
of the applicant's complete submission, including his response 
to the NGB office of primary responsibility (OPR) in judging the 
merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and 
recommendation of the OPR and adopt its rationale as the basis 
for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of 
an error or injustice. In addition, while we note the applicant 
contends that his separation and issuance of his reenlistment 
eligibility code were not in accordance with the applicable ANG 
directives, we disagree. ANGI 36-101, authorizes ACBs to be 
convened at the discretion of the Adjutant General (AG) to 
determine an enlisted member’s career status and based on the 
AG’s denial of the applicant’s appeal, the AG concurred with the 
commander’s decision to nonrecommend him for reenlistment, which 
resulted in his release from the AGR program and subsequent 
discharge from the ANG. Therefore, in the absence of evidence 
to the contrary, we find no basis upon which to recommend 
favorable consideration of this portion of his application. 

 

4. In regard to his request that certain medical documents, 
which he contends were erroneously captured in his medical 
records, be removed, we are not convinced he has provided 
sufficient evidence to show the documents in question are not 
his or that they should be removed from his service medical 
record. Consequently, we do not believe he has met his burden 
of establishing an error or injustice in this record and find no 
basis upon which to recommend favorable consideration of this 
portion of his request. 


 

5. The applicant's 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 issue(s) 
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 members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2011-02988 in Executive Session on 10 May 2012, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 4 Aug 11, with atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Available Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, NGB/A1PS, dated 28 Sep 11, w/atch. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 5 Oct 11. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 28 Oct 11, w/atchs. 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair