At the completion of the course of treatment she was found fit for full duty and released from active duty back to the Air Force Reserve. No Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) was initiated at this time to determine her fitness for duty and AFRES started administrative discharge action under the provisions of AFI 36-3209. Also, in September 1996, ARPC/DPAD terminated discharge action and cleared her to return to active participating status with an assignment limitation code 7 96-0 1447 of...
Office of the Assistant Secretary AFBCMR 96-01 597 DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON, DC JUL 1 3 1998 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: ilitary records of the Department of the Air Force relating t- be corrected to show that he was not reduced to the grade of Airman...
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON DC Office of the Assistant Secretary AFBCMR 96-01717 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 pertinen Force relating to corrected to show nonpaid inactive duty training...
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C ) . Officials within the office of the Secretary of the Air Force reviewed the case file and directed that the applicant be discharged with severance pay and given a 20 percent compensable rating. The disability laws of Title 10, USC require the military services to rate disabilities based on their current condition, at the time...
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 was considered by a medical evaluation board (MEB) on 3 Oct 93, diagnosed "Insulin Dependent Diabetes Mellitus" and therefore dmqualified for worldwide duty.
IN THE MATTER OF: AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS DOCKET NUMBER: 96-0182 pt"u'2 5 1398 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING: NO The applicant requests that he receive a regular retirement under the 15 year Reserve Transition Assistance Program (RTAP) program and that he be retired in the grade of master sergeant ( E - 7 ) which was the highest grade held. The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinions to the Board...
In the applicant's response to the Air Force evaluations, he requests that: 1. THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, to include corrected Officer Selection Briefs (OSBs) reflecting the duty title "Chief Airborne Space Applications Systemsll, effective 20 January 1994 , be considered 5 for promotion to the grade of major by Special Selection Boards (SSBs) for the Calendar Years 1995A and 1996A Central...
d. Paragraph U-5330-G, JFTR provides, in part, for shipment of household goods in advance of orders, however, the Comptroller General has ruled that general information furnished to the member concerning issuance of orders before the determination is 2 AFBCMR 9 6 - 0 2 0 1 3 made to actually issue the orders (such as time of eventual release from active duty, time of expiration of term of service, date of eligibility for retirement, date of expected rotation from overseas duty) may not be...
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The facts and opinions stated in the advisory opinions appear to be based on the evidence of record and have not been adequately rebutted by applicant. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.
On 18 December 1987, the general court-martial approving authority approved only so much of the adjudged sentence which provided for a bad conduct discharge, 14 months of confinement, reduction to airman basic, and forfeiture of $438 per month for 14 months. On 23 February 1988, the Air Force Court of Military Review found the approved findings of guilty and the sentence to be correct in law and fact and, on the basis of the entire record, affirmed the 2 AFBCMR 96-02123 same. On 29...
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 96-02189 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT: His date of rank (DOR) to major be changed from 5 June 1996 to 14 May 1995. 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 Force and in the documents submitted by the...
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). 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.
The Board concluded that, because the applicant was undergoing disability processing for his unfitting medical condition at the same time he was being processed for an administrative discharge for a personality disorder that was not a physical disability, he should have been processed as a "dual action" case in accordance with AFI 36-3212. I n applicant's case, while his disability case was being processed, Kessler AFB Discharge Authority separated applicant under the administrative...
The board recommended that the applicant be discharged with an undesirable discharge. He had 105 days of lost time. The evidence of record reflects that the applicant was discharged for unfitness.
As a result of decisions by the Officer Personnel Records Review Board (OPRRB) to remove the applicant's OPRs closing 4 Feb 90 and 3 Oct 90, and the Evaluation Report Appeal Board (ERAB) to remove his OPRs closing 1 Jul 92 and 7 Jun 93 and replace his P0695A Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF), on 31 Jul 95, he was considered by an SSB for promotion to the grade of colonel by the CY95A Central Colonel Chaplain Board, which convened on 15 Mar 95. It is not within their discretion to...
By letter, dated 22 September 1997, the applicant stated he never received the advisory opinion for review and comment (Exhibit E). Applicant’s response is at Exhibit G. ___________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: After careful review of the applicant’s complete submissions, the majority of the Board found no evidence that applicant’s physical fitness to perform his duties at the time of his separation was questionable. JOHN L. ROBUCK Panel...
Therefore, the applicant was issued a DD Form 214 for the 15-18 January 1991 period because it was in direct support of ODS/S. Since the injury she received while on active duty in 1991 caused her to be permanently retired for disability in 1995, she should have been placed on the TDRL in 1991 and not ordered to participate while disabled. 4 96-02626 A complete copy of the additional Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit H. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: Applicant...
A completely different board reviewed the applicant's OSR for each board. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Counsel reviewed the Air Force evaluations and provides his response which is attached at Exhibit L. THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. 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...
On 18 October 1994, applicant’s commander notified him that a Secretarial determination of satisfactory service, as required by 10 USC 1370, would be made by the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council in deciding the grade in which applicant would be retired. This grade determination resulted in his retirement in the grade of major. We believe that the actions taken by the Air Force were the result of a thorough consideration of the applicant's circumstances and that there was...
As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit E). Therefore, he believes that the number of days from his original Report Not Later Than Date (RNLTD) to his actual arrival date at his new duty station, a total of 51 days, should be restored to his leave account. Accordingly, we recommend that 14 days of leave be added to the applicant's FY97 leave account.
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.
The policy on homosexual conduct does not require the express statement , \\I am a homosexual" in order to support a discharge. The applicant was provided an opportunity to present her case to an administrative discharge board; however, after consulting with her military counsel, she waived her right to do so, contingent upon her receipt of no less than an honorable discharge. Although the discharge notification letter indicated that she was being recommended for discharge for homosexual...
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Physical Disability Division, AFPC/DPPD, reviewed the application and stated that it appears the applicant is requesting an increase in her compensable percentage for the disability for which she was discharged and payment for her DWSP separation, which she claims she never received. However, the record does not indicate if the severance pay was actually issued. She does not feel that she should be charged with severance pay at this time by the VA. She states that...
A current mental health evaluation indicates no mental illness and concludes that there is no substantial reason for security clearance revocation. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: - The Medical Consultant, BCMR, Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council, states that throughout this extensive record back to 1985, at least, can be found entries relating to mental health clinic (MHC) visits for a myriad of problems. 4 Evidence of record and medical examinations prior to separation indicate the...
A complete copy of the Record of Proceedings is attached at Exhibit D. On 7 May 1998, the applicant provided additional documentation and requested reconsideration of his request for promotion to the grade of sergeant with back pay. After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record and the additional documentation submitted by applicant, we find insufficient evidence to warrant favorable consideration of the applicant‘s request for promotion to the grade of sergeant with back pay. The...
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant states the information provided by ARPC/DPAR is incorrect or does not apply to him because he was not a member of the Ready Reserves and his name was not removed from the recommended promotion list since his retirement orders show that he has the permanent Reserve grade of lieutenant colonel. A complete copy of applicant's response is at Exhibit F. ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE...
.The 'appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The medical record clearly shows that while the applicant may have been treated for various medical conditions while on active duty, none were serious enough to render him unfit for further military service under the provisions of disability law and policy. RECOMMENDATION: The Medical Consultant is of the opinion that no change...
On 24 June 1997, applicant's counsel requested that the application be withdrawn without prejudice until such time he and the applicant were able to proceed with additional documentation. The additional relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant's available military personnel and medical records, are contained in the letter, dated 30 April 1997, prepared by the Chief, Medical Consultant, BCMR, who is the appropriate office of the Air Force Office of...
The discharge case file contains sufficient evidence to warrant recommending that the Air Force discharge applicant. On 19 September 1995, the Vice Commander, HQ AMC, recommended applicant be discharged with an honorable discharge and that his case be forwarded to the Air Force Personnel Board for further action. Applicant's case was forwarded to the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) for consideration of discharge under AFI 36-3206 (Administrative Discharge Procedures)...
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). The Board staff is directed to inform applicant of this decision.
Following discharge from the service, he has received disability compensation from the DVA and bases his request for records correction on this fact. Evidence of record established beyond all reasonable doubt that the applicant was medically qualified for continued active duty, that the reason for his separation was proper, and that no error or injustice occurred in this case. 2 A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Disability Operations Branch, USAF...
Documentation provided by the applicant reflects that, on 20 Mar 56, he was discharged under the provisions of AFR 3 5 - 6 6 with an undesirable discharge. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D). THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that on 20 Mar 56, he 2 AFBCMR 96-03330 * was discharged with service characterized as general (under honorable conditions).
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 3UL 0 7 5998 IN THE MATTER OF: I 1 DOCKET NUMBER: 96-03341 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His bad conduct discharge be upgraded. He was honorably discharged on 7 Dec 72 in the grade of sergeant. He was sentenced to be discharged with a bad conduct discharge, to be confined for a period of four months, and to be reduced in grade to airman basic (E-1).
Records reflect she continued to receive medical treatment while in confinement. Applicant's petition suggests that Air Force authorities were indifferent to her medical condition prior to her dismissal, but her medical records support a contrary finding. A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant states, in her response to the Air Force evaluations, that the facts of military justice action omitted a very important...
A complete copy of the Record of Proceedings is attached at Exhibit F. In a letter, dated 1 December 1997, the State of Department of Veterans Affairs, provided additional documentation and requested reconsideration of the applicant’s request for award of the PH (Exhibit G). A complete copy of the Record of Proceedings is attached at Exhibit F. In a letter, dated 25 June 1997, the State of of Veterans Affairs, requested reconsideration request for award of the PH (Exhibit G). ' Examiner's...
While receiving treatment, he was informed that he was to receive the PH Medal for service-connected injuries at the hands of the enemy. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. 2 AFBCMR 96-03428 APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and indicated that he is extremely disappointed in DPPPRA' s recommendation to deny his application. Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 23 Feb 98.
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit E. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and states that in response to the AFPC/DPPA evaluation the Air Force still cannot prove 100% that the SOS information was included in her records and presented to the promotion board. Applicant was considered but not selected for promotion to major for the second time by the PO4 92C Major board and was given a mandatory date of...
I' A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit C. The Chief, Appeals & SSB Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPA, reviewed the appeal and indicates that the DAFSC for the 15 January 1995 duty history has been corrected to include the IrK1l prefix, which indicates the applicant is a qualified instructor pilot. The Chief, Appeals & SSB Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPA, examined the application and states that the additional rater's letter does not warrant removing the contested OPR. A complete copy of...
* DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON, D. C. Office of the Assistant Secretary AFBCMR 96-03744 MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION BEFORE THE AFBCMR SUBJECT Having carefully reviewed this application, we agree with the recommendation of the Air Force 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. Therefore, under the authority delegated in AFI 36- 2603, the applicant's records will be...
'The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request .and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The records indicate that the applicant met a Medical Evaluation Board on 28 Aug 73, and his history then reflected back pain which was not further evaluated, nor was this done on subsequent reevaluations when he continued to note the back pain on the medical history form. Even assuming the minimal compression fracture noted some...
He be permitted to utilize his former Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) for enrollment in the Community College of the Air Force, and that he should be granted the opportunity to participate in the Montgomery GI Bill Program. DPPRR recommended applicant's request be denied (Exhibit L). Until the applicant provides the requested information, his claim for backpay cannot be considered.
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 and her counsel for review and response (Exhibit D). The medical record clearly shows that while the applicant may have been treated for various medical conditions while on active duty, none were serious enough to render her d i t for further military service under the provisions...
It was her husband who initiated the actions required to obtain dependent benefits. After summarizing the processing of the Article 15, her military record, and her contentions and the evidence provided to support her appeal, JAJM indicated that although the applicant's explanation of her marital difficulties is compelling, the evidence submitted with her request does not fully 4 AFBCMR 97-00066 support her position. The records indicate that the applicant's military service was...
They stated they have no way of knowing what information he did or did not receive during his preretirement briefing because his master personnel record does not contain a copy of the SBP counseling RIP. However, those briefings routinely provide information about SBP changes that are permitted after retirement. HENAY c. SAUNDERS 3 AFBCMR97-00 107 DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON, DC Office of the Assistant Secretary AFBCMR 97-00 107 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received...
In off- base DUI cases, like the applicant's, only administrative actions may be taken. According to JA, the procedures set forth in the applicable Air Force regulations were followed in this case, that the evidence supported the actions taken, and that there was no legal error or injustice in this case. Based on the applicant being initially charged with driving under the influence of alcohol, speeding, and erratic driving by the police, his immediate W Commander that his commander...
A complete copy of this evaluation is appended at Exhibit D. 2 97-00143 * APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and indicated that the Air Force instructions referenced by DPPPO were not followed as stated but found to be within the law by a Judge in the United States Court of Federal Claims. JA stated that on the merits of the case, applicant has failed to (1) articulate a rationale as to how or why the Air Force failed to follow the...
COUNSEL: None - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 97-00144 AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS mol a$& HEARING DESIRED: No APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed to one that will allow reenlistment in the Air Force Reserve. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The AFBCMR Medical Consultant also evaluated this case and contends t h a t the evidence is inconclusive in supporting...
IrI have 87 days before beginning terminal leave and I am eligible for 20 days house hunting and 5 days out processing.Il The Retirements Operations Section, HQ AFPC/DPPRSO indicates that applicant requested a subsequent extension of his retirement on 7 April 1997 and the request was approved with his new retirement date to be effective 1 August 1997, by Special Order Number AC-009106, dated 10 April 1997. Also, AFI 48-123 states Medical Hold is not approved for long term convalescence...
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 response to the advisory opinion is at Exhibit E. After careful consideration of applicant's request and her deceased husband's available evidence of record, we find insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant corrective action. Although assigned to a participating status, the points for a year of...
He has insurance coverage. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. - APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 14 July 1997 for review and comment within 30 days. In fact, the available evidence clearly indicates that the applicant was counseled regarding the costs of participating in the SBP and he did elect to participate.