98-00223 AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Deputy Director of Customer Assistance, ARPC/DR, reviewed this application and states that the member states that when he received the RCSBP information it was close to his Continuous Active Military Service Date and he incorrectly interpreted the suspense date to be 90 days from that date. 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...
On 31 October 1996, the Secretary of the Air Force agreed with the findings of the IPEB and directed the applicant's permanent retirement, with a 30 percent disability rating. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The AFBCMR Medical Consultant stated that the applicant served his last five years of military service with a severe eating disorder that resulted in excessive weight loss and physical disability that was thoroughly evaluated at Wilford Hall Medical Center in 1994. Accordingly, we recommend that...
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS . In support of his request, applicant provided his expanded comments, four letters of character reference from current and previous employers, and a certificate of appreciation received while he was on active duty. We note that prior to the time of his misconduct, his performance of his Air' Force duties was also considered to be excellent.
The Officer Performance Reports (OPRs), closing 7 March 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994 and 14 November 1994, be replaced with corrected OPRs covering the same periods. The original performance reports do not fully reflect the applicant's contributions to the Air Force and the Air National Guard. They also recommend the applicant be considered by the next Air National Guard Colonel Federal Recognition Review Board.
As such, the board was aware of the correct duty title by virtue of the fact that it was annotated on the 2 8 Jun 90 TR even though it was incorrect on the OSB. He was 2 AFBCMR 98-00235 DPPPA considered and selected by the CY92C Major Board. Applicant has not substantiated that the reason for his nonselection for promotion by the CY97C board was because of the incorrect duty title.
For instance, DPPPAB does not understand how the racial issues affected the areas rated in items 3, 4 and 5 of Section III of the contested report. However, these documents do not, in our opinion, support a finding that the evaluators, who were also the evaluators on his prior report, were unable to render unbiased evaluations of the applicant’s performance or that the ratings on the contested report were based on factors other than the applicant’s duty performance during the contested...
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). 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.
His Report of Separation was reviewed and it was determined that he was entitled to the Air Medal with four (4) Oak Leaf Clusters (~OLCS), Asiatic-Pacific Campaign Medal with one (1) Silver and one (1) Bronze Service Star, Philippine Liberation Ribbon, American Campaign Medal, and World War I1 Victory Medal which were forwarded to applicant. Applicant requests award of the Silver Star Medal for World War I1 actions. Your Application for Correction of Military Record will be forwarded to...
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 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.
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 responses to the advisory opinion are 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. Available Master Personnel Records C. Advisory Opinion D. SAF/MIBR Ltr Forwarding Advisory...
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DE GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of dischange to Honora ] e. The applicant was offered a personal appearance before: the Discharge Review Board. CONCLUSIONS: The Discharge Review Board concludes that'the discharge was consistent . ” For this, you received | a Letter of Counseling (LOC), dated and Jun 96. e. On 4 Apr 96, you failed to report to your duty section on time.
Have added an additional entry o f 'I23 Apr 83 - Unit Weapon Systems Officer RF-4Co1l A copy of the complete Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit C. The Chief, Appeals & SSB Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPA, also evaluated this appeal and disagrees with the applicant's contention that the selection board may have thought he was not concerned about his promotion because of the Board Discrepancy Report in his selection folder. 3 98-00246 A copy of the complete Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit...
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). Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed this application and states that the first time the two EPRs impacted applicant's promotion consideration was cycle 94A5. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and provided a response which is attached at Exhibit F. THE BOARD CONCLUDES...
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON, DC Office of the Assistant Secretary AFBCMR 98-00268 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: - reduced level of retired pay. --- Attachment: Ltr, AFPClDPPTR, dtd 21 May...
Medical documents recorded reflect his injury as an accidental fall. The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and prgvided 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).
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. The parties divorced on 17 Oct 86 and the member agreed to continue SBP coverage on the applicant's behalf; however, neither submitted a valid election to change the SBP coverage from spouse to former spouse. Premiums for spouse coverage continued to be deducted from his retired pay and finance records erroneously listed...
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the The advisory opinion was application be denied (Exhibit C). 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.
A Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) reviewed his condition on 13 Jul 88 and recommended he be returned to duty. A letter from the squadron section commander, dated 11 Jan 89, indicated that the applicant could not be used in his current AFSC with his medical problems and cross training was recommended. In a letter dated 24 Jan 91, the Chief, Physical Therapy, supported applicant's desire to be retained as an active duty member and cross trained to a less strenuous career field.
There is a not a direct correlation between the markings on the PFW and the ratings on an EPR f. The applicant asserts the indorser fiom the contested report did not have fust- hand knowledge of his duty performance and was, therefore, unable to render a proper evaluation of his duty performance. It is the applicant's responsibility and not the MPF, flight records office or the Air Force, to ensure his records are correct prior to the board. The applicant does not provide any evidence 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). Accordingly, applicant's request is denied. The member is requesting that his record be corrected to allow his participation in the Reserve Component Survivor Benefit Plan (RCSBP).
He was charged with not reporting the accident within the prescribed time. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S RE VIEW OF A I R FORC E EVAT iUAT I ON : A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 18 March 1998 for review and response within 30 days. r The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice; that the application was 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). The Air Force states based on information contained in applicant‘s application, the narrative reason for separation has been corrected to read “Officer Training Program.” The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant f o r review and response (Exhibit D) . Available Master Personnel Records C. Advisory Opinion D. SAF/MIBR Ltr...
c. Applicant signed an Enlistment Agreement (AF Form 3006) =on I1 Sep 95, which clearly stated: “My enlistment in the Regular Air Force is for 4 years of active duty. 104-106, g602(cKdX1), :torily: Reserve enlisted :e not as a result of the i the Air Force described in tion 8914 of this title shall ade in which the member in the case of a member of ber served on full-time Na- ermined by the Secretary of : enlisted member who- 1520 i 1521 CH. Higher grade after 30 years of service: warrant...
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-00317 OUNSEL : HEARING DESIRED: Yes Applicant requests that her deceased husband be released from the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL) so that she can apply for survivor benefits. 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.
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 DEFENSE FINANCE AND ACCOUNTING SERVICE DENVER CENTER 6760 E. IWINGTON PLACE DENVER, COLORADO 80279 DFAS-DE/FYCC MEMORANDUM FOR AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS ATTN: AFBCMR SUBJECT: Application for Correction of...
In regard to his promotion consideration, the applicant states that he entered active duty as a line officer in 1973, and was later transferred to the MSC. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and states that in May of 1989, an oversight concerning his assignment eligibility as a primary duty ALO while holding a AFSC was made by ARPC. We note the R/R year is the period during which a member is required to...
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). Therefore, the request for a hearing is not-favorably considered.
at Exhibit A. Q" reenlistment eligibility (RE) Applicant I s submission is 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 Opinion 3 June 1998 98-00332 MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR FROM: BCMR Medical Consultant 1535 Command Drive, EE Wing, 3rd Floor Andrews AFB MD 20762-7002 SUBJECT: Application for...
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. Applicant claims to have continued his Air Force career with the expectation he would be credited with these four years at the Academy upon his retirement from the Air Force. A corrected SOS was prepared at a dated as 18 Jan a instead of 18 Jan 74. later date...
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). A member who is unmarried at retirement may elect coverage for a newly acquired spouse; however, the election must be made before the first anniversary of the marriage. However, if the Board’s decision is to grant relief, the member‘s record should be corrected to reflect on 24 Mar 89 he elected to add his spouse to his child only...
On 17 March 1996, he ~ i a s not fbiind unf3 to perform the duties of his office. He was not teniporarily retired lijr physical disability on 18 March 19%. YMONII I l.~VE121JEl< Air Force l3oard fix Correction of’ Military Records
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 response 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. Applicant did not submit any new evidence or identifjl any errors in the discharge processing nor provide facts which...
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-00350 COXNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: NG Applicant requests his reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed from "2B" to f f 2 ' r to allow him to enlist in the Army. Applicant's submission is at Exhibit A. The Board staff is directed to inform applicant of this decision.
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. Eligibility and premiums are reinstated effective the first day of the month after the date the former spouse's remarriage terminates. Discussion: Although the member made no election change during the required one- year time limit following divorce, there is no evidence that he requested DFAS terminate his former...
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. Discussion: Although the member made no election change during the required one- year time limit following divorce, he did not request DFAS terminate his former spouse's coverage, premiums continued to be deducted from his pay, and he took immediate action to establish former spouse coverage after DFAS-CL advised him it...
The appropriate Air Force off ice evaluated applicant I 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 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.
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed this application and indicated that the contested report would normally have been eligible for promotion consideration for the 96E7 cycle to master sergeant (promotions effective Aug 96 - Jul 97). Consequently, he was ineligible for promotion consideration for the 96B7 cycle based on both the referral EPR and the PES Code “Q”. Even if the board directs removal of the referral report, the applicant would not...
Attachment: Ltr, AFPC/DPPTR, dtd 2 Jun 98 DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON, DC OfFice of the Assistant Secretary AFBCMR 98-00375 JUL 2-0 1998 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 pertinen Force relating...
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON, DC JUN i 2 1998 Office of the Assistant Secretary AFBCMR 98-00376 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: of the Department of the Air Force relating to be corrected to show that...
Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that her discharge from the Air Force should be changed to a release from active duty. The fact that she was honorably discharged rather than released should not, in and of itself, preclude her from future military service.
No AFSC existed for this career field. He requested assignment to a career field for which he had been trained. While he may not have been performing duties in this career field during his last few months in the Air Force, we do believe that it was his last career field in which he performed duties for which he was trained, In view of the above finding, we recommend his records be corrected to the extent indicated below.
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS DOCKET NO: 98-00386 IN THE MATTER OF: RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SEP 1 7 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: Yes Applicant requests that he be reinstated in his unit in the Air Force Reserves. 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).
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON, DC Office of the Assistant Secretary AFBCMR 98-00388 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 Boarc for Correction of Military Records is announced, and it i s directed that: The pertinent military reccrds of the Department of the Air show that: he was in a...
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application -be denied ( E x h i b i t C ) . Eligibility for disability processing is established by a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) when that board finds that the member may not be qualified for continued military service. Member concurred with the findings and recommendation of the IPEB and, subsequently officials within the Office of the Secretary of the Air...
The applicant believes the decoration citation should have been present in his officer selection record (OSR) for the P0597C board’s review. While the period of service occurred prior to the P0597C board, the decoration did not exist in Jul97 when the board convened. Since a decoration does not exist until a special order is cut (or in the case of the JSCM, an awarding memorandum), it was not required to be filed when the P0596C or P0597C promotion boards convened, nor in fact did it exist...
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, 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. IRVINGTON...
\ L I - A - IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-00400 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES AUG 1 4 1998 Applicant requests that his NGB Form 22 be coded to allow him to reenlist in the U.S. Armed Forces. 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 states NGB Form 22 (Record of Separatiori and Record of Service) is incorrectly coded.
I denied applicant ' s The Air Force Discharge Review Board request on 26 January 1998. The AFDRB brief was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). (AFDRB) 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.
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AUG 1 4 5998 IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-00405 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO Applicant requests that he be given credit for two additional missions. The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). Advisory Opinion D. SAF/MIBR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinion DEPARTMENT O F THE AIR...