In an application submitted under AFR 31-3, dated 11 March 1 9 8 6 , the applicant requested his separation documents be corrected to show he was separated in the grade of sergeant, his organization at - - - - > + - - separation be changed 482nd Svc Sq, his eye color was blue, the addition of several battles and campaigns, and one overseas bar. This submission is at Exhibit G. 2 AFBCMR 86-04518 I I I AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Directorate of Assignments, AFPC/DPAISl, reviewed...
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: While at the United States Air Force Academy (USAFA), he was counseled that he would receive four years of constructive service credit upon graduating from USUHS; that he relied on this counseling in making his decision to attend USUHS; and that, had he known of a change in constructive service policy prior to attending medical school, he probably would have foregone this opportunity and remained in the Air Force as a line officer. In an application to the AFBCMR,...
On 7 April 1997, the applicant again requested reconsideration based on the fact that the Board had granted several cases that he believed to be similar to his case (Exhibit CC with Attachments). In their view, the former HPAC chairman’s letter does not contain any evidence or information that was not known and available to the applicant when he filed his original application in 1985. "; the latter applicant.
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 87-03917 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES RESUME OF CASE: On 13 “January 1988, the Board considered applicant‘s request that his discharge be changed to a medical discharge. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the additional evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a...
corresponding Member of Congress was informed that should the applicant provide additional evidence pertaining to post-service activities, reconsideration of his appeal may be possible (Exhibit G) . The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 3 November 1998, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Ms. Rita S. Looney, Panel Chair Mr. Steven A. Shaw, Member Mr. Patrick R. Wheeler, Member I By a majority vote, Ms. Looney and Mr. Shaw voted to deny...
The applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit N. THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: We have carefully reviewed the applicant's complete submission and the entire evidence of record; however, we still do not find a sufficient basis to excuse the untimely filing of the application for correction of military records. Accordingly, we again conclude that it would not be in the interest of justice to excuse the untimely filing of this application. The following members of the Board...
ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 4EC 0 8 1998 IN THE MATTER OF: - 558-76-8013 -.. DOCKET NUMBER: 88-028 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES She be promoted to the grade of lieutenant colonel; or, that the AF Form 77, Supplemental Evaluation Sheet, which replaced t w o voided Officer Evaluation Reports (OERs), be altered to inform promotion boards of the reason for the removal of the reports. The applicant explains her promotion to the grade...
In the alternative, a Training Report be inserted in his files reflecting enrollment in an AFIT program during the time between his 1989 separation and 1991 reinstatement; the indorsement level on the Officer Evaluation Reports (OERs) closing 27 March 1984, 28 January 1985, and 1 June 1985, be upgraded; Air Force Commendation Medals (AFCMs) coinciding with his transfer from Shaw AFB and separation from Ramstein Air Base be accomplished and inserted in his record; the prejudicial comments and...
On 27 August 1992, in responding to a query by the applicant, DFAS indicated, in pertinent part, that (1) the correction to the record had no impact on his retired pay, (2) there is no difference in TDY pay because entitlement is based on location and not grade and relocation allowance is a travel entitlement based on mileage and not grade, ( 3 ) there was no provision of law authorizing the payment of interest on amounts found due based on correction of military records, and (4)...
In an application dated 7 July 1990, he requested that Blocks 9a, 9c and 13 on his DD Form 214 should also be changed in view of his RE code being changed to 1J. A copy of the Record of Proceedings is attached at Exhibit C. g : The Military Personnel Technician, AFMPC/DPMARS2, reviewed the application and states that if applicant had been given an RE code of 1J at the time he separated, he would have been released from active duty and would have fulfilled his MSO in the Air Force Reserve. ...
I 4 By letters dated 7 August 1997, 26 October 1997, 9 December 1997, and 16 February 1998, applicant requested reconsideration of his He provided copies of documentation submitted with his appeal. 3 AFBCMR 91-01962 JAJM recommended that the Board deny the applicant's request: (1) on the basis that it is untimely; (2) on the merits; and ( 3 ) because it does not meet the criteria for reconsideration. Applicant contends that his SF Form 88, Report of Medical Examination, dated 16 August...
e--- ** AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 94-02679 8. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant's military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Staff. Therefore, we recommend that his records be corrected as indicated herein.
Prior to his separation, the member had a diagnosis of alcohol abuse, continuous, and failed the rehabilitation program. A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. i APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant and his counsel on 21 November 1991 for review and response. A copy of the Air Staff evaluation is attached at Exhibit H. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force...
Therefore, we recommend his records be corrected to the extent indicated below. A complete copy of the Air Staff evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR STAFF EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the Air Staff evaluation and states that the reason in the delay in the decoration recommendation is that none of his crew were debriefed after they were repatriated from German POW c no one had any knowledge of decorations. The following members of the Board considered this...
Since his recall to extended active duty, the applicant has received O P R s closing 2 May 1996, 2 May 1997, and 2 May 1998, in which he was rated “Meets Standards .” ’ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Service Verification Section, AFPC/DPPAO, reviewed this application and indicated that the applicant’s date of rank as a major at the time he entered extended active duty as a chaplain on 21 June 1991 was computed in accordance with AFI 36-2604 based on his promotion to major in the Air Force...
ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 93-00230 INDEX NUMBER: 128.00;133.03; 129.04 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His retired pay be computed based on the years of service for basic pay versus years of active service for retirement, and that his retired grade be changed from airman first class to technical sergeant. ...
There is no evidence of error or irregularity in che award of Ehis rating given the applicant’s condition at that point in time. The Medical 2 .‘ consultant is of the opinion that no change in the records is warranted and the application should be denied. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit I. AFBCMR 93-00292 APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Counsel reviewed the Air Force evaluation and provided a copy of applicant’s bone density report (see Exhibit K) .
A complete copy of the Air Staff evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR STAFF EVALUATION: In summary, applicant states that the evidence is clear there is no basis to time bar his petition. If h i s above r e q u e s t are n o t granted, he r e q u e s t s t h a t - t h e 0489A Promotion Recommendation For (PRF) be upgraded t o d e f i n i t e l y promote (DP) and he be considered f o r promotion t o t h e grade of major by Special S e l e c t i o n Board (SSB) f o r...
- .- - DOCKET NO: 93-00826 AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD%^? Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided agvisory 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).
A similar appeal was considered and denied by the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR) on 4 October 1993 (Exhibit F) . The applicant provided additional new evidence pertaining to his post-service activities for possible reconsideration of his application (Exhibit G ) . 1552. r Exhibit F. Record of Proceedings, dated 4 Oct 93 Exhibit G. Letter from applicant, undated, with Exhibit H. FBI Investigative Report, PCN 980446910621 additional evidence Panel Chair V
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE MATTER OF: IN THE MATTER OF: SSAN: SSAN: DOCKET NO:- 9 3 - 0/5;/0 NIK NIK 1 7 1993 1 7 1993 consideration of applicant's Applicant requests that his discharge be upgraded to General. After careful request and the available evidence of record, we find the application untimely. Applicant should also be informed that this decision is final and will only be...
.I AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION QF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ... The appropria$e Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). 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.
I L. e AFBCMR 93-01781 DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION O F MILITARY RECORDS WASHINGTON DC 20330-1430 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF I Under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code and Air Force Regulation 31-3, 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: The pertinent Force relating to show that he enr Scholarship...
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Pursuant to the Board's request, the Evaluation Procedures Section, AFPC/DPPPEP, reviewed the applicant's most recent submission and provided an assessment concerning the applicant's request that his OPRs closing 16 Aug 89 and 28 Jun 90 be replaced with reaccomplished OPRs. A complete copy of the DPPPEP evaluation is at Exhibit H. The Management Level Review Section, AFPC/DPPPEB, reviewed the applicant's submission and recommended denial of his request for upgrade of...
On 17 November 1994, the Board considered and denied applicant's request that he be returned to active duty in the grade of master sergeant, with service credit for the period following his dischaxge up to his return to active duty (Exhibits A through H). The complete statement is at Exhibit N. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: By letter, dated 12 September 1997, Major General B---, USAFR, Retired, responded in applicant's behalf to the additional advisory opinion,...
His records be purged as follows: All nonselections be deleted; his separation be voided; and his records be corrected to reflect constructive active duty service as appropriate. On 5 Aug 96, the Board considered and denied the applicant's requests that his nonselections for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel be set aside; and, that he be directlv promoted to the grade of lieutenant colonel, or afforde; "effective" Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration (see AFBCMR 93-01960,...
I I DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS WASHINGTON DC 20330-1430 , AFBCMR 93-02170 SEP 2 0 I993 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code and Air Force Regulation 31-3, 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: -- corrected to show t T& pertinent - _ 1' :*w- Air...
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRFCTION OF MILITARY RECORDS d A S H l N G T 0 N DC 20330-1 430 AFBCMR 93-02346 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code and Air Force Regulation 31-3, and having assured compliance with the provisions of the above regulation, the decision of the Air Force Board for Correction bf Military Records is announced, and it is directed that: The pertinent mi partment of the Air Force relating to be...
Per letter dated 3 March 1 9 9 7 , counsel requested the processing of the case be continued (Exhibit J) . DPMAJWl noted applicant's EPR closing 11 February 1993 (Not recommended for promotion at this has an overall rating of "2" time) (Exhibit H) The Senior Attorney-Advisor, AFPC/JA, reviewed this application and provided comments on issues raised by applicant's counsel with respect to due process and equity. Nor did we find any evidence that the applicant's rights were violated during...
A complete copy of the Record of Proceedings is attached at Exhibit G. Applicant's counsel submitted additional information on 16 May and 25 August 1998, requesting de novo consideration of applicant's request and amended applicant's requests (Exhibits H c AFBCMR 94-00739 and K). Counsel ' s numerous contentions regarding the Air Force's obligation to advise applicant of pending changes in legislation which would impact his eligibility to reenlist in the Regular Air Force are duly noted;...
Although the applicant has not specifically stated the reason for his request to have his rank at the time of his discharge changed, he provided copies of his Air Force Reserve order and discharge certificate reflecting the grade of staff sergeant (E-5) (Exhibit A, atch 3). They stated that the Airman's Medal was disapproved and award of the AFCM was recommended pending approval of waiver of time limitation by the Air Force Military Personnel Center (AFMPC). We have carefully reviewed...
A complete copy of the Record of Proceedings is attached at E. In an undated letter the applicant provided additional documentation and requested reconsideration of his application. Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit F. THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice. After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record and the additional documentation submitted by applicant, we are...
Panel Chairman Attachment: Ltr, HQ USAF/DPPCC, dtd 31 May 94 D E P A R T M E N T OF THE A I R FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS WASHINGTON DC 20330- 1430 AFBCMR 94-01821 MEMORANDUM FOR THB'CHIEF OF STAFF Under t h e authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code, Air Fore6 Regulation 31-3, 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...
A copy of the Record of Proceedings, with attachments, dated 9 December 1994, is attached at Exhibit F. Applicant has submitted an application, dated 23 September 1997, requesting reconsideration of his earlier request to delete the additional rater's comments from the OERs, for the periods closing 15 June 1987 and 15 June 1988; and, that he receive consideration for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by SSB for the CY90A Medical/Dental Lieutenant Colonel Board. In support of his...
The applicant has not provided evidence to substantiate his allegation that racial favoritism played a role in the rating he received on the contested report. In regard to applicant’s request that his past performance reports be taken into consideration as indicators of his duty performance, DPMAJAl stated a report is an evaluation based on the quality and quantity of individual performance during a certain period. While laudatory of the applicant's performance, they do not, in...
In the opinion of the voting members, the applicant should not have been recommended for promotion by the 1 October 1990 Air Force Reserve Colonel Overall Vacancy Selection Board. A complete copy of the Record of Proceedings is attached at Exhibit F. The Memorandum for the Chief of Staff, dated 16 March 1998, awarded the applicant the minimum number of points for satisfactory service for the Retention/Retirement Years ending (RYE) 22 March 1995, 22 March 1996, and 14 June 1996, fExhibit In...
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). 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.
a [ 4 a b Q o His Officer Effectiveness Report (OER) , rendered for the period 26 Sep 85 through 25 Sep 86, be declared void or void the ratings and comments of the indorser. The other statements the applicant provides support his appeal, but they are not from rating chain members, nor do they prove the contested report is inaccurate. Hammond Myers, 111, Panel Chairman Scott W. Stucky, Member Joseph T. Wagner, Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form...
In support of his request, he submits copies of the Article 15 and the denial of the set-aside request; an excerpt from the transcript of the AFR 39-10 Administrative Discharge Board and the Report of the Board Proceedings; supporting letters, the contested EPRs, and related documents; documentation relating to his appeal of his non-selection for reenlistment; and the taped recording of the Administrative Discharge Board proceedings Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A. ...
The applicant requests that: (1) The PRF for CY92A be upgraded to a DP; and (2) he be considered for promotion to the grade of colonel by SSB for the CY92A Colonel Selection Board. In support of the appeal, applicant submits a statement from the Management Level Evaluation Board (MLEB) President, dated 18 March 1996 and a statement from the Senior Rater, dated 12 October 1998. In regard to the new statement provided by the senior rater now supporting a Definitely Promote (DP) in the...
The applicant provided extensive sworn testimony during the sentencing portion of his trial and the court members were fully aware of his condition. AFBCMR 94-03455 Applicant's record of trial has been thoroughly reviewed. AFBCMR 94-03455 applicant was appropriately found ineligible for processing through the Air Force disability evaluation system in accordance with AFRs 35-4 and 160-43.
ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Pursuant to the Board's request, the Chief, Physical Disability Division, HQ AFPC/DPPD, again reviewed the application, which plicant's 12 November 1993 letter to Congresswoman The specific questions the applicant raised in the aforementioned letter concerning the disability issue have been addressed by DPPD in their evaluation at Exhibit D. DPPD stated that the applicant was evaluated, boarded, found unfit and rated based upon the "back pain, associated with...
He was released from active duty and t to the Reserve component under the provisions of (Completion of Required Active Service), in the grade airman. On 2 8 May 96, the Board considered and denied an application f o r correction of military records pertaining to the applicant, in which he requested that he be awarded the Purple Heart (see AFBCMR 9 4 - 0 3 8 2 7 , with Exhibits A through F). THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: In earlier findings, we determined that there was insufficient evidence to...
RESUME OF CASE: On 17 August 1995, the Board considered and approved the applicant's request that his PRF for the P0591B Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board be replaced with a reaccomplished "Promote" PRF and that he be afforded Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration. Applicant is asserting that the Board failed to provide complete relief in its original decision, and that the promotion selection boards that considered his record were not held in compliance with law and...
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS SECOND ADDENDbPl TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 9 5 - 0 0 2 3 8 COUNSEL: None m2r 1998 HEARING DESIRED: No APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to show he completed his contract with the Air Force (4 years of active duty service and 2 years of inactive reserve service) , he was awarded the Good Conduct Medal (GCM) , he be awarded all monies due as a result of the foregoing corrections, and, he be...
A complete copy of the Addendum to Record of Proceedings is attached at Exhibit H. In an application, dated 11 November 1997, the applicant provided additional documentation and requested reconsideration of his application. Hebo, his Airman Performance Reports (APRs) for his tour on Okinawa clearly show a pattern of indifferent attitude toward his training, his job, and the Air Force, Therefore, they recommend denial of his request for award of the AFGCM, A complete copy of the Air Force...
He had served 30 years, 3 months, and 3 days on active duty. According to the Medical Consultant, further review of this case without substantive evidence of an error in the disability retirement award compensation would seem to be unwarranted. A complete copy of the Medical Consultant's evaluation is at Exhibit H. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In his detailed response, the applicant indicated that it appears that the BCMR Medical Consultant has mistakenly assumed that...
Based on input from the Retraining Section at AFMPC, the applicant received approved CAREERS retraining into AFSC 115x0 (which was authorized a Zone A, Multiple One-Half SRB) on 4 February 1993, prior to his reenlistment in AFSC 361x1. DPMAPE recommended denial of the applicant's request to have the recouped SRB reinstated. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit E).