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). 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.
For a decoration to be eligible for consideration in a promotion cycle, the close-out date of the decoration must be on or before the Promotion Eligibility Cutoff Date (PECD), and the date of the RDP must be before the date of selections for the cycles in question. Current Air Force promotion policy (AFI 36-2502, Table 2.2, Rule 5, Note 2) dictates that before a decoration is credited for a specific promotion cycle, the close-out date of the decoration must be on or before the promotion...
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory 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). The applicant voluntarily requested early separation from the Air Force for miscellaneous reasons and the request was approved for his separation to be effective 06 Aug 97.
*e- Background: A spouse’s eligibility as an SBP beneficiary terminates upon divorce. If neither the member nor the former spouse requests the election change during the one-year eligibility period, former spouse coverage may not be established thereafter. Neither party remarried, SBP premiums continue to be deducted from the member‘s retired pay, and the former spouse is reflected as the eligible spouse beneficiary.
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The reasons the applicant believes the records to be in error or unjust and the evidence submitted in support of the appeal are at Exhibit A. RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD: A majority of the panel finds insufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommends the application be denied. He lost 16 days on 1 Oct because Title 10 USC 701 precludes members f?om carrying over more than 60 days into the next FY.
However, the law provides two mechanisms for changing spouse to former spouse coverage. If neither the member nor former spouse requests the election change within the one-year eligibility period, former spouse coverage may not be established thereafter. Discussion: Even though the member did not make a valid former spouse election change, there is no evidence he requested coverage for her be terminated.
, ' JUN 3 0 1996 Office of the Assistant Secretary AFBCMR 9 8 - 0 0 0 6 9 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Under the authority of Section 1 5 5 2 , Title 10, United States Code, and 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: The pertinen Force relating to show that 2 8 days o commencing 2 October 1 9 9 7 ; and, at...
- 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: ds of the Department of the Air Force relating to- corrected to show that at the time 0fr)discharge on 15 March t Eligibility (RE) code of “3K.” V Air Force Review Boards Agency -- I , AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF...
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON, DC OCT 2 7 1998 Office of the Assistant Secretary AFBCMR 98-00086 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: itary records of the Department of the Air Force relating t be corrected to show that nine (9) days of leave were add V Air Force Review...
A complete copy of this Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. applicant contends that The Chief, Officer Promotion and Appointment Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPO, states that the aeronautical/flying data reflected on his OSB is incorrect. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant's submission, we are not persuaded that hisofficer Selection Brief 4 (OSB), reviewed by the Calendar Year 1997C (CY97C) Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, should be corrected...
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON, D.C. Office of the Assistant Secretary AFBCMR 98-00092 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code and AFI 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: Eate (PSD)’ and’Promotion Service Date (PED) of 4 December 1996. We were aware of this error...
Air Force Review Boards Agency AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-00094 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: Yes APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Article 15, dated 22 November 1996, be set aside and removed from his records, including his promotion selection record and an Unfavorable Information File (UIF) . The applicant alleges the same evidence and his response used in the Article 15 proceeding was reviewed by the Board to...
If the member does not elect former spouse coverage during the one-year eligibility period, that coverage may not be established thereafter. Although SBP premiums may continue to be deducted from the member's retired pay following divorce, the former spouse is not eligible to receive annuity payments in the event of the member's death e Facts: The member and applicant were married when the member elected spouse and child coverage, reduced annuity, prior to his 1 Apr 89 retirement. ...
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO: 98-00114 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES AU9 r-1 898 Applicant requests that his Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be deleted. The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). Accordingly, applicant's request is denied.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-00117 R. KENNEY COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The AF Form 77 (Supplemental Evaluation Sheet), covering the period 3 February 1994 thru 27 November 1994, be removed from his records; the Officer Selection Brief (OSB) reviewed by the Calendar Year (CY) 1997C Lt Colonel Board be corrected in...
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON DC Office of the Assistant Secretary AFBCMR 98-00118 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code, and 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 mili nt of the Air be corrected to Force relating to orce Reserve...
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). 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.
t I AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 9 8 - 0 0 1 2 4 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO Applicant requests that he be awarded the Aerial Achievement Medal ( A A M ) , Fourth Oak Leaf Cluster, for his support in Humanitarian Operations for the period 7 Dec 9 2 to 22 Mar 9 4 . Applicant's submission is at Exhibit A. i- The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the...
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE .MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-00128 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO SEP 1 6 Applicant requests that he be awarded the Aerial Achievement Medal (AAM), for his support in Humanitarian Operations for the period 30 December 1992 to 30 June 1994. The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). As noted...
Had the applicant reviewed his promotion records prior to the ISS board rather than after it, the DMSM could and would have been reflected on the Professional Military Education (PME) selection brief. ISS boards evaluate the entire officer selection record. The applicant also contends that the AFCM 20LC was not reflected in his record prior to the ISS Board.
The AF Form 2096 is changing the applicant's DAFSC to include the ItKtt prefix and changing his duty title to read I1Assistant Operations Officer, both effective 8 May 1997. A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 13 April 1998 for review and response within 30 days. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant's submission, we are not...
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON, DC JUL 0 7 5998 I 1 I I I Office of the Assistant Secretary AFBCMR 98-00136 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United S t a t e s Code and Air Force Instruction 36-2603, and having assured compliance with the provisions of the above regulation, the decision of the Air Force Board f o r Correction of Military Records is announced, and it is directed that: The pertinent militarv records o f - t h e Denartment...
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-00138 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO L. Applicant requests L a t he be awarded the Aerial Achievement Medal ( A A M ) , Third Oak Leaf Cluster, for his support in Humanitarian Operations for the period 10 Nov 91 to 25 Oct 93. The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit...
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). 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 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. After careful review of the application and coordination with the 34gth Military Personnel Flight, Travis AFB CA, it was determined s - the award of the AAM...
DOCKET NUMBER: - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: 98- 00142 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO Applicant requests that he be awarded the Aerial Achievement Medal ( A A M ) , First Oak Leaf Cluster, for his support in Humanitarian Operations for the period 1 4 Jan 93 to 8 Dec 9 3 . Applicant's submission is at Exhibit A. L. The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board...
Applicant requests that he be awarded the Aerial Achievement Medal ( A A M ) , First Oak Leaf Cluster, for his support in Humanitarian Operations for the period 10 Dec 92 to 10 Oct 94. 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 review of the application and coordination with the 34gth Military Personnel Flight, Travis AFB CA, it was determined -was reco nized...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-00146 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. Applicant did not submit evidence or identify any errors in the discharge processing nor provided facts that warrant an upgrade of his discharge. We conclude, therefore, that...
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). Available Master Personnel Records C. Advisory Opinion D. SAF/MIBR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinion DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE HEADQUARTERS AIR FORCE PERSONNEL CENTER RANDOLPH AIR FORCE BASE TEXAS MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR FROM: HQ AFPC/DPPRS 550 C Street West Ste I1 Randolph AFB TX 78 150-471 3 SUBJECT: Application for Correction of...
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). Applicant's response to the advisory opinions 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. On 6 Dec 96, officials within the Office of the Secretary of the Air Force directed that the...
Upon his retirement with pay as a reserve member in October 1991, no deductions were established from his RAT. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Retired Pay Operations, DFAS-CL/FRAB, reviewed this application and states that unless the member requests correction to show that he never elected RCSBP coverage, no action can be taken by the Board in this matter. _________________________________________________________________ The following...
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-00153 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO FEB 1 9 1999 He be awarded the Air Medal, Seventh Oak Leaf Cluster (AM, 7 OLC) . A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit B. The applicant contends that based on the documentation he has provided which indicates that he shot down an ME-109 on 2 April 1944, he should have been awarded the AM, 7 OLC.
and Exhibit 1, provides the member be rated for each disability and disabling condition. In regard to the applicant's contention that the Formal Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB) did not consider additional medical addendum and tests scheduled prior to the 24 July 1996 Board, it appears that even though the electrocochleography (ECOG) was not considered by the FPEB, they did consider the applicant's symptoms of chronic disequilibrium and found it not unfitting and, therefore, not ratable or...
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). Available Master Personnel Records C. Advisory Opinion D. AFBCMR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinions DEPARTMENT O F T H E AIR FORCE HEADQUARTERS A I R FORCE P E R S O N N E L CENTER RANDOLPH A I R FORCE BASE TEXAS MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR FROM: HQ AFPCDPPRS 550 C Street West Ste 11 Randolph AFB TX 78 150-47 13 The applicant, while serving...
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). 14 Randolph AF’B ‘JX 78150-4716 SUBJECT: Application for Correction of Wtary Records -7 REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant declined Servicemen’s Group We Insurance (SGLI) in Dec 94. It’s our opinion that had member wanted this coverage, he would have completed the new election form sooner.
The Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) reviewed by the Calendar Year 1996C (CY96C) Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, be declared void and replaced with a reaccomplished PRF. In support of his request, applicant submits a statement from the Senior Rater, who has rewritten the contested PRF and, a statement from the Management Level Review Board President supporting the substitution of the contested PRF with a reaccomplished PRF. A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at...
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). We defer to AFPC/DPPPWB’s advisory which indicates applicant never completed the minimum requirements for promotion to Senior Airman, and therefore, his application should be denied. The applicant is requesting his grade at the time of discharge from the Air Force be changed to reflect senior airman (SRA) (E-4) and not airman first...
Applicant's submission is at Exhibit A. Asia Service request The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). Applicant requests award of the Southwest Asia Service Medal. The applicant’s records do not contain any documents showing he was in the 0 consecutive days [TDYJ, and he did not provide any, even when requested to ut documentation showing he was in the Area of Responsibility for...
If neither the member nor the former spouse requests the election change during the one-year eligibility period, former spouse coverage may not be established thereafter. Although SBP premiums may continue to be deducted from the member’s retired pay following divorce, the former spouse is not eligible to receive annuity payments in the event of the member‘s death. Recommendation: Although there is no evidence of Air Force error, to preclude a possible injustice, we recommend that the...
There were no provisions in the laws during these open enrollment periods requiring the Services to notify spouses of retired members if the member did not enroll. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPTR, reviewed this application and states that microfiche records verify SBP enrollment packets and newsletters mailed to the decedent during the 1981 - 1982 and 1992 - 1993 open enrollment periods were mailed to the decedent’s address...
On 13 Jan 97, the applicant's commander notified him of his intent to recommend to the demotion authority that he be demoted. On 4 Sep 97, the applicant's commander requested that the applicant original rank be restored, which the demotion authority approved. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant indicated that he has requested the Board adjust his DOR because there are currently no options for a commander to suspend demotion in an administrative demotion action.
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). No such evidence is found in this record, and, therefore, the applicant’s request for a disability discharge cannot be granted. RECOMMENDATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant is of the opinion that the applicant’s request for a medical disability discharge is not supported by evidence of records and his request should, therefore, be denied.
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. It also includes information on recomputation of retired pay at age 62.
-- AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Skills Management Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPAE, reviewed the application and states that although miscounseling was confirmed by the MPF, with regard to applicant's eligibility for the SRB he is requesting, the applicant was still not entitled to a full six-year SRB based on three extensions of enlistment. HQ AFPC/DPPAE states that if partial relief is granted, because of the applicant being miscounseled, he would need a constructive reenlistment and be entitled...
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 Board staff is directed to inform applicant of this decision. Available Master Personnel Records C. Advisory Opinion D. AFBCMR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinion DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE AIR NATIONAL GUARD MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR FROM: A N G N P P U 3500 Fetchet Avenue Andrews AFB, MD 20762-5157 SUBJEC n of Military Records 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. It would not be in the best interest of the Air Force to give the applicant a date of rank to capthn that is earlier than that of other officers promoted from the CY97B Central Captain...
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AUG 1 8 1998 IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-00214 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross for service during World War 11. CHARLES E. BENNETT Panel Chair 2, AFBCMR 98-00214 DEPARTMENT O F THE AIR FORCE HEADQUARTERS AIR FORCE PERSONNEL CENTER RANDOLPH AIR FORCE BASE TEXAS MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR FROM HQ AFPCLDPPPRA 550 C Street West Ste 12 Randolph AFB...
On 24 May 1988, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) .considered and denied applicant's request for upgrade of his bad conduct discharge to honorable. A copy of AFDRB Hearing Record is attached at Exhibit C. On 20 March 1998, the AFBCMR invited the' applicant to submit information pertaining to his activities since leaving the service (Exhibit D). careful consideration of .applicant's request and the available evidence of record, we find insufficient evidence of error or injustice...
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS lf COUNSEL: None _ : ao. by - applicant. evidence applicant was denied.
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant was discharged with an entry level separation on 24 April 1986 after I month and 18 days in Basic Military Training (BMT) under the provisions of AFI 39-10. 9800222 Recommendation, Applicant did not id en ti^ any specific errors in the discharge processing nor provide facts which warrant a change in...