In support of his request, applicant provided his 13-page statement; a memorandum addressed to another officer from the Director of Personnel at the Air Intelligence Agency regarding review of the promotion recommendation process; a statement from the senior rater of the PRF prepared for the CY90A lieutenant colonel selection board; a copy of the reaccomplished PRF provided with his initial submission, which reflects a "Promote" recommendation; and a document entitled "Illegal Air...
XXXXXXX, XXXXXXX and XXXXXXX all agreed that the applicant had an attitude problem. XXXXXXX informed the commander that he told the applicant that she had a “s--- attitude.” On 19 Jul 91, XXXXXX and the applicant asked to have a meeting with the commander. On 23 Jul 91, XXXXXXX, noted the applicant’s absence from work during the day.
'Panel Chairman / Attachment: Ltr, AFPCDPPTR, dtd 3 Oct 97 DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE HEADQUARTERS AIR FORCE PERSONNEL C E N T E R R A N D O L P H AIR FORCE BASE T E X A S - MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR FROM: HQ AFPC/DPPTR 550 C Street West Ste 1 I Randolph AFB TX 781 50-471 3 SUBJECT: Application for Correction of Military Records Ref ere nce : Requested Correction: The applicant is requesting corrective action to show he filed a timely election for former spouse and child coverage under the...
A complete copy of the Air Force evafuation, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit D. APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and provided a 16-page rebuttal. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the additional Air Force evaluations and provided a two-page rebuttal (see Exhibit K) . In essence, a majority of the board must recommend an officer for promotion and each member is required to certify...
JA stated that there is no provision of law that specifically requires each member of a promotion board to personally review and score the record of each officer being considered by the It 8 AFBCMR 95-00486 4 board. 12 AFBCMR 95-00486 He stated that the Board can see the errors in the Air Force process are certainly 'directly related to the purpose and functioning of selection boards" - the failure to allow a majority of the members of the board to find each and all officer(s) recommended...
The applicant was found unfit and his name was placed on the TDRL on 8 Sep 93 for physical disability subsequent to a diagnosis of avascular necrosis of the right hip with a 30 percent disability rating after 16 years and 2 months on active duty. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. The Chief, Inquiries/Special Actions Section, AFMPC/DPMAJW1, also reviewed this application and indicated that based on the DPMMMR’s finding that the applicant’s placement on the...
Counsel states 'I [applicant I s] sexual orientation has nothing to do with his performance." The Board will have to ask themselves what applicant's sexual orientation has to do with his performance as an Air Force officer. Counsel argues that applicant's sexual orientation has nothing to do with his duty - performance; however, we note that the Air Force states that the "whole person" concept is used by both evaluators and promotion boards.
DR noted that at the time the applicant met the FY94 Reserve of the Air Force Line and Health Professions Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, his O S F included a Directed by HAF report for 2 AFBCMR 95-02481 the period 29 Oct 92 through 18 Mar 93. If a completed copy of the OPR is accepted for file, it is further recommended that his record be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel, Air Force Reserve, by a Special Review Board; that his record be evaluated in...
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Master Records Management Division, ARPC/DSMO, reviewed this application and recommended denial, stating that, although the applicant has provided favorable communications from individuals not in his rating chain for the OPRs in question, they are not convinced by the evidence provided, that these reports do not accurately portray applicant's duty performance and should be removed from his record. If the Board disagrees, they recommended removal of the...
ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 95-02912 COUNSEL : HEARING DESIRED: YES E T 3 0 N& RESUME OF CASE: - In an application dated 8 September 1995, applicant requested that his records be forwarded to Lackland AFB Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) for an informal determination of disability as of the date of his retirement; and he be given the right to appeal to a formal PEB if the informal result is...
3 AFBCMR 95-03389 now requests is follow-up care AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Medical Consultant to the AFBCMR reviewed this application and indicated that a review of the applicant's dental reeords reveals he had a dental appointment in Oct 93, the month p-rior to retirement, but that dental care could not be completed prior to retirement. The basis for the disapproval was that the applicant could receive the dental treatment he needed from the VA. After a thorough review of the facts and...
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 96-00521 COUNSEL: HEARING DESIRED: Yes K T 2 8 19k!f-- APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be reinstated to active duty and given the proper medical treatment he was denied; He be given an honorable discharge with full retirement. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The AFBCMR Medical Consultant states that evidence of record and medical examinations prior to separation indicate the applicant did not have...
As a result, he was given a career-ending Article 15. 8 The Military Pay Office a t The Article 15 was based on two allegations: (1) He certified that he provided adequate support for his wife for two years (May 1988 - May 1990) known by him to be false; and, (2) determined that he either did not provide his wife with adequate not entitled to BAQ with-dependent rate. In support of is appeal, the applicant provided copies of the following documents: GAO Settlement Certificate, dated 27 Sep...
ACC/JA found the file legally sufficient for removal from promotion action. In this case, the commander was within his authority to request promotion delay and removal. The removal action appears to be supported by the evidence of record and we find no basis upon which to conclude that it was unjust or inappropriate.
He would like to address the PRF via a letter to the Board president with information on the Residency in Aerospace Medicine. In support of his request, applicant provided his expanded comments, a letter to the CY95A MC/DC Promotion Board President, and documentation associated with the issues in this appeal. If the applicant is approved for SSB consideration, DPPPEB recommended that he meet the board with the original PRF, (Exhibit D) The Chief, Medical Accessions and Personnel Programs,...
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). - MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR FROM: ANGMPPU 3500 Fetchet Avenue Andrews AFB MD 20331-5157 SUBJE rection of Military Records 1 9 4 7 - 1 9 9 7 0 3 3UiJ 1997 The attached Application for Correction of Military Records submitted by the applicant, 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). He requests correction of his records to show that he was not discharged and that he is eligible for reenlistment. The record contains evidence of several failures to go to work on time, including three occasions after he was recommended for reenlistment.
In support of the applicant's appeal, he submits a statement from the rater and commander of the EPR in question. A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant's states, in summary, that the rater's signed letter is proof of injustice in this case. The reviewing commander's signed letter also proves injustice.
SRA C--- immediately reported the m, Rand to Lt Col K--- U--- , the Deployed Director of incident to Lt Col P--- M---, the Deployed Detachment Commander, On 19 September 1994, C o l (BGen (sel)) J- Operations, contacted the _ - B--- I t Security Police and of the incident by Lt C o l M- reported be to the report of the investigation (ROI) by the Police, SRA C- - - s allegations were substantiated ( - Privileged Information) . Moreover, no witness who provided statements to the...
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. E. Applicant's Response AFBCMR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinions 10 ADr 97 Memorandum for the AFBCMR From: BCMR Medical Consultant 1535 Command Drive, EE Wing, 3rd Floor Andrews AFB MD 20762-7002 Subject: Application for Correction of Military Records Applicant's entire case...
Backaround: Public Law (PL) 92-425, which established the SBP, required the spouse be notified when a member declined or elected less than maximum spouse coverage. Recommendation: We recommend the decedent's records be corrected to show on 31 Jan 80 he elected spouse SBP coverage based on full retired pay. PAT PEEK, DAFC Chief, Retiree Services Branch Directorate of Pers Program Management ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS The following members of the Air Force Board for Correction...
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE MATTER OF: 4 DOCKET NO: 96-02327 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO Applicant requests that his narrative reason for separation be changed. The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). RECOMMENDATION: The Medical Consultant is of the opinion that no change in the records is warranted 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) . Available Master Personnel Records C. Advisory Opinions D. E. Applicant's Response AFBCMR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinions DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES AIR FORCE WASHINOTON, DC 22 November 1996 MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR FROM: HQ USAF/DPXFC 1040 Air Force Pentagon Washington DC 20330-1040 ction of Military...
A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. 2 , (PDS) ; however, they The Chief, BCMR and S S B Section, HQ AFPC/DPPPA, states that with regard to the duty title and assignment history effective date changes, AFPC/DPAIS1 made these corrections to the personnel data system support (DPPPA) do not These reconsideration for promotion on these issues. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant...
On 31 July 1996, she was honorably released from active duty, under the provisions - miscellaneous/general reasons), and transferred to the Air Force Reserve. ( voluntary release 36-3208 of AFI The Commander's Programs Branch, AFPC/DPSFC, stated applicant's master military pay account (MMPA) shows 20 days of excess leave since applicant's days of leave exceeded the days accrued as of the date of release from active duty on 31 July 1996. In this regard, the commander's erroneous permissive...
On 28 January 1955, upon the recommendation of the Air Force Personnel Board, the Secretary of the Air Force directed that the applicant be discharged and issued an undesirable discharge certificate. On 26 August 1955, the Air Force Discharge Board considered and denied applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge. At the time the applicant was being processed f o r administrative discharge, he was highly recommended by his superior officers -and enlisted associates as to his...
DPPB stated that is exactly what happens on Air Force promotion boards. As noted previously, there is no provision of law that specifically requires each member of a promotion board to personally review and score the record of each officer being considered by the board. Sections 616 and 617 require consensus among 'la majority of the members of the board" about the officers to be recommended for promotion.
An AFAFC letter to the decedent, dated 7 October 1972, explained that SBP coverage had been established on his spouse's behalf in compliance with the provision of the law that required establishment of maximum spouse and child coverage if a member, such as the applicant, made no election before retirement. Documents provided by the applicant include a copy of a 7 Oct 72 letter to the decedent from the Air Force Accounting and Finance Center (AFAFC) which explained SBP coverage had been...
The member elected child only coverage based on full retired pay prior to his on 21 Oct 95 and sent the Defense Finance and 1 May 95 retirement. Because the member's divorce decree did not address the SBP, there was no requirement for him to elect former spouse coverage, but he could have done so voluntarily. It is our opinion that the 17 Apr 96 court order is not enforceable because it was issued after the member was already retired.
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). RECOMMENDATION: The Medical Consultant is of the opinion that no change in the records is warranted and the application should be denied. Eligibility for disability processing is established by a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) when that board finds that the member may not be qualified for isntinued military service.
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON, DC Office of the Assistant Secretary AFBCMR 96-03735 DEC 0 2 1997 f MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that: issued in conjunction with his Honorable Discharge on 14 October 1994, Gas “&-3K.” records of the Department of the Air Force relating to 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). 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 applicant has requested that his record be corrected to retain previous election (no coverage) and that he be reimbursed premiums deducted as a result of the 1 Apr 96 increase in...
On 5 Sep 95, a physical examination for fitness for military duty by the Air Force Reserve medical physician concluded that the applicant had severe symptomatic pes planus and indicated by his recommendation that the applicant was not qualified for worldwide duty. The applicant was not aware that a Palace Chase assignment would require review of his medical records and when the foot problem was found, he was disqualified from continued duty using the very same reference to AFI 48-123...
MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Under the authority of Section 1 5 5 2 , Title 10, United States Code, Air Force Instruction 3 6 - 2 6 0 3 , and having assured compliance with the provisions of the above regulation, the decision of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records is announced, and it is directed that: rtment of the Air The pertinen , be corrected to Force relating to show that on 4 O c ange his Survivor Benefit Plan election from “child coverage” to “spouse and...
97-00286 A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPWB, also reviewed this application and states that should the Board void the contested report in its entirety, upgrade the overall rating, or make any other significant change, providing the applicant is otherwise eligible, the applicant will be entitled to supplemental promotion consideration commencing with cycle 9635. The applicant requests correction of the 14 Mar 95...
In accordance with policy, the application was forwarded to this Board for further consideration (Exhibit C). The AFDRB brief 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 Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied applicant s request on 30 January 1 9 9 7 (Exhibit B). The AFDRB brief was forwarded to the applicant and applicant's counsel for review and response (Exhibit D). Accordingly, applicant's request is denied.
# DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON, DC Office of the Assistant Secretary AFBCMR 97-00442 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that: .. of the Departmeat of the Air Force relating to- e corrected to show that he had no other alternative but to mercial travel office (CTO) not under...
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON, DC Office of the Assistant Secretary AFBCMR 97-00744 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that: rtment of the Air Force be corrected to show that on 4 November 1996, but on that date, his enlistment of 5 November 1990 was extended for a period of 61...
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...
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON, DC Office of the Assistant Secretary AFBCMR 97-00826 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF’ OF STAFF Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that: 1996. ent of the Air Force be considered for ection Board for the nvened on 9 September Director Air Force Review Boards Agency U AIR FORCE BOARD FOR...
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS - IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 97-00860 COUNSEL : HEARING DESIRED: Yes APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT: The Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period 27 Mar 92 through 26 Mar 93 be declared void and replaced with a reaccomplished report covering the same period. In support of his appeal, the applicant provided statements from the rating chain and documentation relating to his appeal. A complete copy of the...
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 facts and opinions stated in the advisory opinion appear to be based on the evidence of record and have not been rebutted by applicant. Although requested, he did not fbrnish a copy of his Report of Separation.
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON, DC Office of the Assistant Secretary AFBCMR 97-01 102 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that: the Departmencof the Air Force relating d to show that, on 2 March 1996, he enli aiman basic (E-l), with an effective date and a date of rank of 2 March...
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON, DC Office of the Assistant Secretary AFBCMR 97-01120 Nov c 4 1897 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF.OF STAFF Under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code, Air Force Instruction 36-2603, and having assured compliance with the provisions of the above regulation, the decision of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records is announced, and it is directed that: The pertinent mi Force relating to to show that: t of the Air be...
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). Upon review of the results, the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) recommended that applicant be discharged with severance pay with a 10 percent compensable disability. Of note, however, is the fact that the applicant received a letter fiom AFPCDPPD, dated 7 Apr 97, notifying the applicant, "If you are currently receiting...
1 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 applicant’s records were forwarded to the appropriate office to have those awards and decorations to which he is entitled added to his DD Form 214. We recommend disapproval of the applicant’s request for the Air Force Longevity Service Award and Small Arms Expert Marksmanship Ribbon to be added to his DD Form 214.
J AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 97-01394 , COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: my 2 2 1997 Applicant requests that he be given special selection board (SSB) consideration by an unnamed central lieutenant colonel selection board with a corrected 28 Aug 96 officer performance report (OPR) and a pending decoration included in his officer selection record (OSR). The appropriate Air Force off ices evaluated applicant I s...
On 28 Oct 92, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied the applicant I s request for upgrade of his UOTHC discharge to honorable (Exhibit B). The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). Records indicate member’s military service was reviewed and appropriate action was taken.
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 DD Form 149 B. After a thorough review of members personnel record, there was no AF Form 2096 and any other documentation to substantiate award of the 5-skill level in AFSC 4TOX1.