ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 95-01123 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be reinstated on active duty to complete service for length of service retirement, or favorable consideration for the Voluntary Separation Incentive/Special Separation Bonus (VSI/SSB). ...
According to DPPPEB, there was no evidence presented to support the allegations of "illegal" information being considered in the PRF process. Also, there was no official evidence presented to support allegations of '\special" promote recommendations being used to identify officers who should be selected for promotion by the Central Selection Board. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In his response, the applicant indicated that the evidence proves that his PRF was based on an...
However, it appears evident that if the applicant was truly serious about getting ACSC completed before his IPZ board, his plan would have called for completing it prior to CY 1993 or CY 1994, not CY 1996. Concerning the evidence provided by the applicant related to the similarly-situated officer whose case was considered by the Board, DPPA stated that the advisory opinion provided in that case to the Board in 1984 was in error. Once again, JA stated that had the applicant based his...
AFPC/JA states that THC marijuana has a half-life in urine samples. Therefore, they do not feel that the Legal Advisor's refusal to instruct the board on the discharge characterization options constitute reversible error, A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. APPLICAN TIS RE VIEW OF AIR FORCE E VALUATIO8: The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and indicated that he disagrees with their findings. While the applicant believes his rights to due process...
To effectively challenge an OPR, it is necessary to hear from all the evaluators the contested report, not only for support, but also for DPPPA noted that the applicant clarification/explanation. In addition, DPPPA does not believe the letters from outside her rating chain are relevant to the applicant's case. There is no requirement in the regulation/instructions governing office evaluations to submit letters or statements from the rating chain.
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Programs and Procedures Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPRP, reviewed applicant's request for reconsideration and recommended denial. Although he repeatedly states his decision to apply for VSI was involuntary, based on discussions with others, he voluntarily applied for VSI and continued his application when he was provided the correct information. Military Personnel Flight Letter (MPFL) 93-78, Atch 2, para 2a, dated 29 Dec 93 (Atch l), clearly stated, “Line captains in...
On 29 Jun 98, the applicant provided additional documentation through his senator and requests the Board reconsider his requests and award him 100% disability retirement from the Air Force and change his DOR to 15 Dec 81 (see Exhibit S). _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief Medical Consultant, AFBCMR, SAF/PC, reviewed applicant’s request and indicated that all evidence of record points to the applicant having been...
In order to be discharged, she had to be legally and properly discharged. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit K. The Chief, General Law Division, HQ USAF/JAG, also reviewed the case and indicates applicant's contention that the discharge order was not effective until 27 June 1993 should be rejected because she had sufficient constructive knowledge of her discharge to make it effective 11 June 1993. Air Force.
On 2 9 July 1 9 9 3 , the Deputy for Air Force Review Boards accepted the Board's recommendation and directed applicant's records be corrected accordingly (Exhibit C) On 16 February 1 9 9 4 , the AFBCMR considered and denied the applicant's requests that his RE Code 2X be changed and that he be reinstated to active duty in the branch of his choice, with back pay and allowances. An AF Form 418, contained in the applicant's records, reflects that, on 4 February 1992, he was not recommended or...
V Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records 4 c DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON DC OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY AFBCMR 94-02473 MAR 0 8 1995 MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION BEFORE THE AFBCMR SUBJECT : DECEASED , _L__ Having carefully reviewed this application, we agree with the recommendation of the Air Staff and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has been the victim of either an error or an injustice. The Purple...
The majority of the panel concluded that the contested report was not invalidated by a possible personality conflict between the rater and applicant, nor was it used as a means of retribution. The Chief, Inquiries/Special Actions Section, AFMPC/DPMAJWl, also reviewed this application and states that should the Board void the contested report in its entirety, upgrade the overall rating, o r make any other significant change, the applicant will be entitled to supplemental promotion...
The Medical Consultant stated that review of medical records does not disclose any evidence to support correction of records from retirement for length of service to disability retirement. However, the Air Force failed to do appropriate testing to show the severity of the problem. The Medical Consultant indicated that had a pacemaker been implanted while applicant was on active duty, he would not have been qualified for worldwide duty.
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON, DC Office of the Assistant Secretary AFBCMR 95-02947 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: ecords of the Department of the Air Force relating corrected to show that he was honorably discharge Washington Air National Guard on 13 Jul95, with a...
On 12 July 1994, applicant's Group Commander recommended applicant's involuntary discharge from the Air National Guard and as a Reserve of the Air Force, for a pattern of misconduct according to ANGR 39-10. Based upon his whole record, a general under honorable conditions discharge could legally be granted. Based upon his whole record, a General Under Honorable Conditions discharge could legally be granted.
The Board also recommended that his records be considered by a Special Review Board (SRB) for promotion by the FY 1 9 9 6 selection board. The Board denied his requests for a direct promotion to captain with a PSD and PED of 11 August 1 9 9 5 and satisfactory years of Federal service for the RYES 1991, 1992 and 1993 (see AFBCMR 9 5 - 0 2 9 6 3 , with Exhibits A through F). In addition, it was directed that his record be considered by an SRB for promotion by the FY 1996 Reserve of the Air...
The applicant appealed the contested report closing 20 June 1991 under the provisions of AFI 36-2401 (formerly AFR 31-11) and the appeal was considered and denied by the Airman Personnel Records Review Board (APRRB). A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Inquiries/Special Actions Section, AFMPC/DPMAJWl, also reviewed this application and states that the first time the contested report closing 2 0 Jun 91 was considered in the promotion process was cycle 93A6...
3 * ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS SEP 2 2 1998 DOCKET NUMBER: 95-0353 IN THE MATTER OF: COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO RESUM E OF C ASE : On 11 March 1997, the Board considered applicant's requests that his records be corrected to show that he was promoted to the grade of staff sergeant, and he be awarded the Purple Heart (PH). Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable error or...
By accepting the ASP payment, the member incurs an active duty service commitment (ADSC) to remain on active duty for one year from the date payment is received. DPAMFl stated that if the applicant would have signed his initial ASP agreement, instead of the declination statement, this would have been evidence of his intent to remain on active duty for the given period of time regardless of the outcome of his hospitalization. JA also noted that, during his active duty time in 1992,...
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Selection Board Secretariat, AFMPC/DPMAE3, reviewed the application regarding Defective Selection Boards and recommends denial. However, other portions of DODD 1320.09 stated: tlSelection boards convened for different competitive categories or grades may be convened concurrently,Il and When more than one selection board is convened to recommend officers in different competitive categories or grades...
There was no board in 1990. The provisions of law and directive were violated by the Air Force selection board procedures used when applicant was considered for promotion. Counsel's complete response is attached at Exhibit I.
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Selection Board Secretariat, AFMPC/DPMAB, reviewed the application regarding Defective Selection Boards and recommends denial. The provisions of law and directive were violated by the Air Force selection board procedures used when applicant was considered for promotion. Counsel's complete response is attached at Exhibit I.
The operation of the Air Force selection boards did not comply with Sections 616 and 617, Based on these illegal actions, he requests that his promotion nonselections be Set aside and correction of his record to reflect continuous active duty until the first day of the month following the decision on this petition. A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Selection Board Secretariat, AFMPC/DPMAB, reviewed the application regarding Defective Selection Boards and...
His record be corrected to reflect continuous active service as a a captain from the date he was separated as a result of his nonselection to the grade of major. He served 15 years and 21 days of active duty and received $15,000.00' in severance pay. A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Selection Board Secretariat, AFMPC/DPMAB, reviewed the application and recommends denial.
Continuation on active duty for a period of time in order to be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by two selection boards. He was also considered and not selected by the CY79 and CY80 Permanent Major Selection Boards. As a result of an earlier appeal to the AFBCMR, he was considered and not selected by Special Selection Board (SSB) , which convened on 8 November 1982, by each of the above boards.
A complete copy of the Record of Proceedings is at Exhibit F. In a letter to his Senator dated 23 July 1997, the applicant provided a witness' statement from his supervisor at the time and asked that he be awarded the PH. In a combat support role, applicant was wounded as a result of enemy action. On 7 December 1994, the PH Review Board denied his request for the award, stating that the documentation furnished on his behalf, in accordance with established criteria, did not...
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Relief and Inquiries Branch, AFLSA/JAJM, reviewed the appeal and recommended that applicant's requests be denied. Once a military member is in military confinement and his term of service has expired, it cannot be extended. On appeal the US Air Force Court of Military Review upheld applicant's sentence after dismissing two (2) specifications.
Calculating the AFIT commitment based on 15 months placed his last day of commitment before the ending date of the VSI program, thus qualifying him for the VSI. DPPRP indicated that if the applicant believes that non-academic days should not be factored into the ADSC computation, then they suggest that non-duty time should not be counted in calculating the discharge of the ADSC and leave and weekends should be deducted from the service credit since completion of AFIT (see Exhibit C). He...
He be reinstated on active duty in an AGR-Title 32 position as a Security Police Officer. Counsel’s complete responses, with attachments, are attached at Exhibits F and G , P ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Medical Consultant, AFBCMR, reviewed t h i s application and states that based on the Board‘s request for further review, professional mental health provider input was sought regarding applicant’s allegations of impropriety in the administration and evaluation of his case. A...
9 6 - 0 0 2 5 6 On 30 October 1 9 9 6 , applicant submitted additional documentation and requested the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR) rescind its decision to remove his Reserve OPRs from his official active duty record and replace them with an AF Form 77, his Reserve OPRs and decorations be updated and returned to his official record, and direct promotion to major. Moreover, they have repeatedly agreed with AF/JAG that the AFBCMR is not in the...
___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His requested class date was based on his DEROS (date eligible for return from overseas) of April 1993, and using that date he would not have had the required 21 months retainability after completion of his technical school. The retraining was approved in April 1992 and he received the earliest possible training quota for AFSC 1C1X1. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit...
Exhibit B. Exhibit D. F B I Report. MARTHA MAUST / Panel Chair I ' DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON, DC Office of the Assistant Secretary AFBCMR 96-00395 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 Department of the Air Force relating to be corrected to show that on 5 Apr 57, he...
On 14 March 1997, applicant was advised that the Board concluded the documentation did not meet the criteria for reconsideration (Exhibit S) . THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with this...
On 28 May 93, the applicant was released from active duty under the provisions of ANG Regulation (ANGR) 36-05 (Misconduct) with an honorable characterization of service in the grade of major. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Counsel for the applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and provided an 8-page rebuttal letter disagreeing with the advisory opinion (see Exhibit E) . The Board should be informed that case was appealed and 4 AFBCMR 96-00558 ANG.
Thus, once the applicant's HHG shipment departed Germany, there was no opportunity to divert the shipment until it arrived at the port of Long Beach. VP-119,872 with a net weight of 13,364 pound was charged a total of $969.00 for excess di ore of Abilene TX Loma Linda CA vice the authorized destination he ade c. After arriving in'the US,-traveled to Tulsa OK. On 1 June 1994, he visited the Traffic Management Office (TMO) at Dyess AFB TX and requested the HHG shipment that was en route to...
While the Board felt the applicant's conduct helped create the appearance that he had improperly allowed government property to be shipped with his household goods, it nevertheless concluded the specific allegation of which the applicant was given notice was not substantiated, and therefore determined not to consider it in assessing the applicant's service , Allegation 6: Misuse of Saudi Peace Shield Case Funds - Between Jan 88 and J u l 89, while serving as the Director, AF/PRI, the...
ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 96-00593 ALE 2 5 1998 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be reconsidered for promotion to the grade of chief master sergeant (E-9) for the 9539 promotion cycle, with the Letter of Evaluation (LOE) , closing 14 December 1994, filed in his selection folder, and that his records be rescored. RESUME OF CASE: On 17 December 1996, the Board considered...
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE MATTER OF: JUN 1 2 1998 DOCKET NUMBER: 96-00702 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. applicant was discharged in 1955. We noted the applicant's request that his discharge be upgraded to honorable.
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 96-00869 APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT: The Article 15, dated 8 November 1995, be set aside and that he be reimbursed*$1,800.00 in pay forfeitures. During the meeting, Major E--- (Chief , Mental Health Services) , suggested that Lt Colonel R- - - contact the Communications Squadron to see if they had a record of the phone calls. During the interview, the applicant admitted to lying to his...
A copy of the Representative's letter, with attachments, is at Exhibit H. THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice. We therefore recommend his records be corrected as indicated below. Panel Chair 2 DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON, DC - Office of the Assistant Secretary AFBCMR 96-00978 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board...
1 AIR FORCE E VALUATION: The Separations Branch, Directorate of Personnel Program Management, AFPC/DPPRS, reviewed this application and states that based on the information contained in the application and applicant's master personnel records, they find no new evidence to indicate the applicant's discharge was incorrect or that an injustice occurred. Master personnel record indicates applicant’s case was reviewed by an Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) and his discharge was upgraded...
The Air Force has awarded such officers JA briefly addressed the provision in the USUHS contract the applicant signed that excludes USUHS active duty service time "[i]n computing date of rank, promotion service date or total years service date." Before concluding, we briefly address the provision in the USUHS contract the applicant signed that excludes USUHS active duty service time “[iln computing date of rank, promotion service date or total years service date.”I2 In the case of officers...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS e AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 96-01175 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES Applicant requests that his records be corrected to reflect that .he was not honorably discharged from the Air Force Reserve for failure to reply to official correspondence. 4 -'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...
The pertinent medical facts surrounding the applicant's physical disqualification for worldwide duty and continued service in the Air Force Reserve are contained in the discussion section of the evaluation prepared by the BCMR Medical Consultant attached at Exhibit G . In this respect, we note the findings of the BCMR Medical Consultant (Exhibit G) that the applicant was diagnosed with severe cardiac disease when he was evaluated at Wilford Hall Medical He was subsequently found...
Air Force Reviewoards Agency RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: * COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: She be refunded for prenatal and delivery expenses incurred in a civilian facility after her separation in the amount of $4,237.14. If approved, (applicant's request was not), the individual must be informed any maternity care in a civilian medical facility is at the patient's own expense and, if care must be...
f. He receive compensation for leave days that would have accumulated while on active duty. In a letter, dated 3 August 1998, the applicant amended his request to indicate that he was requesting retirement in the grade of major as of the date of the Board's decision. Although the applicant has requested to be retired effective the date of the Board's decision, since a member must be retired effective the first day of the month (unless for disability reasons), we have selected 1 August...
- -obs, and recommended placed in A compiete copy of the evaluation 1s attached at Exhibit K O APPLICANT'S REVIEW OE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and has provided her response which is attached at Exhibit M. THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. Essentially applicant requests chat the contested Officer Performance Report (OPR) closing 30 April 1996 bp removed and replaced with a reaccomplished report reflecting her grade as lieutenant colonel with no indication...
.states: In the case of an officer who 1s eligible for promotion who was considered for promotion by a selection board but was not selected, the Secretary of the military departmen: concerned . Notwithstanding their view of the law in this matter, they have been made aware of the fact that- another case before the AFBCMR involving an individual with facts exactly the same as the applicant's, was recently resolved in that applicant s favor by granting him consideration f o r promotion to the...
On 26 December 1956, the applicant was honorably discharged and on 27 December 1956, reenlisted in the Regular Air Force for a period of 6 years. The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that on 26 May 1958, he was discharged with service characterized as general (under honorable conditions). MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of...
SECOND ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 96-01420 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO RESUME OF CASE: In an application dated 23 April 1996, applicant requested that he be considered for promotion to the grade of major by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for the Calendar Year 1994A (CY94A) Central Major Board with a reaccomplished Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF), a corrected duty title on his 14 July 1993...
The evidence provided does not show to our satisfaction that his performance was not accurately depicted by the contested reports, or the reports were based on factors other than his performance, a majority of the Board adheres to the original decision and concludes that no basis exists to ,act favorably on the applicant's requests. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice; that...