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: Applicant was discharged from the Air Force under provisions of AFI 36-3212 with a medical disability and severance pay on 22 Jun 96 after serving a total of 14 years, 4 months, 23 days on active duty. Based on the medical evidence provided to the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB), member was found d i t...
They noted that while the investigation into the applicant's alleged dereliction of duty could have been more thorough, it nonetheless provided the commander with enough evidence to form the basis of his opinion. Additionally, the applicant could have refused to accept the Article 15 and demanded trial by court-martial or appealed his commander I s findings or punishment. After a thorough review of the evidence, the majority of the Board finds no persuasive evidence that the Article 15...
He be reinstated on active duty with back pay and allowances and with credit for time in service for all purposes from the date of separation to the date of reinstatement. Applicant did not identify any specific errors in the discharge processing nor provide facts which warrant a change in the reason for separation or a change in the separation code. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Staff Judge Advocate, AFPC/JA, reviewed this application and states...
In support of the appeal, applicant submits a statement from the rater on the OPRs closing 23 November 1990, 23 November 1991, 23 November 1992, stating that the very nature of applicant‘s day-to-day duties has for many years been of such a highly classified nature that a great deal of his real accomplishments and duties simply could not be included in the Air Force evaluation system due to security restrictions. The statement from the rater of the OPRs rendered from 24 November 1 9 8 9...
In a letter, dated 7 August 1998, the applicant amended his application to include amending the OPRs, closing 14 October 1994 and 2 May 1995, to reflect the duty title "Deputy Commander,, and that Block 111, Job Description, on both reports and Block VI, Rater Overall Assessment, on the OPR, closing 14 October 1994, be amended accordingly to reflect this change. .. - - L * , v. DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON, D. C. Office of the Assistant Secretary AFBCMR 97-00335 MEMORANDUM FOR THE...
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 97-00347 COUNSEL: HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT: He receive a medical retirement and awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC). AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant reviewed this application and states the applicant was not eligible for disability retirement since laws in effect at the time of his discharge specifically denied retirement eligibility for...
It is the applicant's and the unit's responsibility to make sure sufficient points are acquired for a satisfactory R/R year. They recommend the application be disapproved because the applicant was aware of the requirement to obtain 5 0 points for a satisfactory retirement year. ' We recommend this application be disapproved because the applicant was aware of the requirement to obtain 50 points for a satisfactory retirement year However, if favorable consideration is made on behalf of the...
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Office of Personnel Program Management, HQ AFPC/DPPAES reviewed this appeal and states that applicant should have been extended from 9 April 1996 to 30 January 1998. Instead, he should be extended beginning 10 April 1996 and ending on 30 January 1998, compensated as discussed in the advisory opinion (with no pay for the period 7 June to 11 July 1996) , and allowed to extend for one promotion cycle beyond his projected HYT date. He received no pay and allowances...
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 97-00407 SEP 2 1898 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to reflect he declined to participate in the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) program at the time his name was placed on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL). (Exhibit A) STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant elected insurable interest SBP coverage, naming his father as beneficiary,...
On 14 June 1988, the Secretary of the Air Force approved the removal of the applicant's name from the list of officers selected for promotion to the grade of major by the CY86B Major Selection Board. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. The Chief, Physical Disability Division, HQ AFPC/DPPD, states that they reviewed the applicant's application and verify the applicant was never referred to or considered by the Air Force Disability System under AFR 35-4. ...
_ i 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). He now applies requesting that his status be changed to medical retirement based on Department of Veterans' Affairs (DVA) (temporary) award of 100% DR. FACTS: The records indicate that the applicant met a Medical Evaluation Board on 19...
/ Director Air Force Review Boards Agency k AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ADDENDUM TO IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 97-00562 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: NO MAY 1 8 1998 APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His current enlistment be extended for a period of 4 years beyond his completion of a one-year period of probation (ending on 20 February 1997), resulting in a date of separation of 20 February 2001. After successfully completing the program, he...
A complete copy of the Air Staff evaluation is attached at Exhibit C APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORC E EVALUATIO N: A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 2 September 1997, f o r review and response within 30 days. However, as of this date, no response has been received by this office. L E Panel Chair E. BENNETT S ~ 3 * I DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON, D. C. I c Office of the Assistant Secretary AFBCMR 97-006 18 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF...
STATEMENT OF FACTS: The Air Force indicated the applicant elected reduced spouse and child coverage The SBP counselor at d o ; F B , Nevada, provided verification that the applicant‘s wife did not attend the 4 Sep 96 SBP pre-retirement briefing. There is no evidence of error or injustice in this case and DPPTR recommends the requested relief be denied. The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 21 May 98, under the provisions of Air...
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that, on 3 Nov 56, he was discharged with service characterized as general (under honorable conditions). The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 1 4 9 , dated 24 Feb 97, w/atch. VAN GASBECK Panel Chair 3 AFBCMR 97-00691 DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON, DC Office of the Assistant Secretary AFBCMR 97-0069 1 2 4 JUL...
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 4 : DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE AIR FORCE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY (AFLSA) MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR FROM: AFLSNJAJM 112 Luke Avenue, Room 343 Bolling AFB, DC 20332-8000 SUBJECT: Correction of Military Records pplicant’s request: In an...
Applicant's submission is at Exhibit A. records be corrected The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). Our decisions are based on the documentation provided and opinions of our medical and legal staffs. RECOMMENDATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant is of the opinion that no change in the records is warranted and the application should be denied.
HEARING DESIRED: NO The appropriate Air Force off ices evaluated applicant s request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C ) . Based on the Sheppard Hospital psychiatric evaluation dated 29 Mar 91, it is reasonable to find that the member could have been recommended and processed through the Air Force disability evaluation system under the provisions of AFR 35-4 and referred to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB). REQUESTED ACTION:...
In the applicant's response to the Air Force evaluations, he requests that the AFBCMR direct his record be corrected to 'reflect selection for promotion to the grade of colonel by the CY94 promotion board. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit G. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and provided a response, with attachments, which is attached at Exhibit I. However, after a thorough review of the evidence of...
c L/ Director Air Force AIR FORCE IN THE MATTER OF: RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS DOCKET NUMBER: 97-00922 JUN 2 5 1998 HEARING DESIRED: YES 1 4 APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The decision of the Formal Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB) be reversed and she be returned to active duty, with back pay and allowances, and all other benefits to which she is entitled. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant reviewed this application and opined that the applicant...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Superintendent, Officer Promotion Management, Dir of Personnel Program Management, AFPC/DPPPOO, reviewed the application and states that in order for the applicant to be considered for promotion to the grades of first lieutenant through lieutenant colonel, the applicant must have been appointed as a second lieutenant while on active duty. A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit...
This letter also advised applicant of his eligibility to elect coverage under the RCSBP. They receive a package from the Air Reserve Personnel Center (ARPC) which covers all aspects of the plan. Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 12 May 97.
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) . 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.
He entered his last enlistment on 19 Mar 85, on which date, he reenlisted for a period of four years. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied the applicant’s request that his general discharge be upgraded to honorable and his narrative reason for separation be changed. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent...
On 25 Jul 96, the applicant received a LOR for use of excessive force while apprehending another Air Force member. Commanders may also remove an enlisted member's UIF prior to the disposition/expiration date, if they feel the UIF has served its purpose. With respect to the applicant's request that the LOR, dated 25 J u l 96, and the UIF established as a result of receiving the LOR be removed from his records, we note that the UIF is destroyed within one year after the effective date and...
According to DR, prior to May 96, travel orders were issued that did not specify any requirements for the purchasing of airline tickets, and consequently Dobbins ARB reimbursed members after they filed their travel vouchers. If the applicant had purchased his airline ticket after the issuance of his orders, he would have read the statement on his orders directing him to purchase his ticket from a Government contracted CTO, and he would have been informed of the procurement restriction prior...
Records received to date do not show that applicant has sought disability through the 2 .c 97-01000 DVA, whose records show no evaluation having been done up to 3 May 1996. A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. APPLT CANT ' S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and states that he sent copies of his medical records with requests for another opinion and interpretation of his condition to the Chief Orthopedic Surgeon and his...
A copy of the complete evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The AFBCMR Medical Consultant also evaluated applicant's case and provides his rationale for recommending that no change in the record is warranted. A copy of the AFBCMR letter to the applicant is at attachments, is at documents I' for letter to the the requested Exhibit H. THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. / Pa el Chair P HEN Y C. SAUNDERS 4 97-01001 DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON, DC Office of the Assistant Secretary AFBCMR...
Exhibit A. voluntary separation be changed Applicant's submission is at 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 counsel for review and response (Exhibit D) . Accordingly, applicant's request is denied.
Naval Academy graduation, prior Navy/Marine Corps flight training and aviation rating, educational attainment of M. D. degree, specialty in dermatology, and completion of the USAF Aerospace Medicine Primary (AMP) course/USAF Flight Surgeon aeronautical rating. provided nothing to verify he made an attempt prior to either board to get this information updated in the personnel data system (PDS) . APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and...
Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON, DC Office of the Assistant Secretary AFBCMR 97-01031 MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION BEFORE THE AFBCMR SUBJECT : Having carefully re vie wed^ this application, we agree with the recommendation of the Air Foqce (HQ AFPC/DPPD) 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. Since the member’s condition...
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 97-01079 m COUNSEL: NONE amm- HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Court-Martial and conviction be removed from his records; and, the grade of staff s nt he earned be restored and reflected on his WD AGO Form Enlisted Record and Report of Separation, dated 6 November 1945. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant's...
18, itseparation from the Military Service by Reason of Physical Disabilityii, one overcomes this presumption (1) only when the member, because of their disability, was physically unable to perform adequately the duties of their office, grade, rank or rating or that (2) acute, grave illness or injury or other deterioration of the member's physical condition occurs immediately prior to or coincident with their processing for a non-disability retirement Or separation. The applicant's complete...
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS NOV 0 41998 IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 97-01100 HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be restored to the grade of colonel (0-6) and that he be retired in that grade with all appropriate retirement pay retroactive to 1 December 1996. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. They recommend the applicant's request be denied. Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Panel Chair Mr. Richard A....
It is the opinion of USAFA/JA that the Cadet Medical Evaluation Board (CMEB) recommendation for applicant's medical discharge was properly processed and, based upon the medical opinions provided, resulted in an appropriate decision by the Secretary to medically discharge the applicant. After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record, we are persuaded that applicant's involuntary - disenrollment from the United States Air Force Academy (USAFA) should be changed to a voluntary resignation...
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AUG 3 11998 IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 97-01105 COUNSEL : HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT: He be reinstated in the Regular Air Force in the grade of airman (E-21, which was the grade he held at the time of discharge. Applicant alleges that the discharge authority discharged him prematurely before completion of an investigation of three Inspector General (IG) complaints he filed and the...
Never had there been a diagnosis of personality disorder by any provider at any time. A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant's counsel on 8 September 1997 for review and response within 30 days. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant's submission, we are not persuaded that he should be returned to flight status or, that his medical...
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant reviewed this application and indicated that the applicant developed a bipolar disorder during the course of her active duty service, a condition which had not 2 AFBCMR 97- 01142 J been diagnosed prior to her service (as suggested by the IPEB) nor which was aggravated by "willful noncompliance" as the FPEB found. The Medical Consultant is of the opinion that the applicant should receive relief from the disability evaluation system and have...
When it came time for her appraisal in February 1996, her supervisor gave her an overall rating of satisfactory. The Air Operations Officer stated it was his policy not to give a rating higher than a "Satisfactory" for first year performance ratings. 97-01161 In further support of her appeal, applicant submits a statement from the current Air Operations Officer stating he concurs with the application to correct the applicant's performance appraisal.
The appropriate Air Force o f f i c e evaluated applicarit ‘ s request ana provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit Z The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D ) . T r. 0 additional evaluation was forwarded to applicant f c r re-Jie+; ar,d comment (Exhibit G ’ i . Applicant’s response to the additional evaluation is at Exhibit H. The appropriate After careful consiaeratio~ cf applicant's r e q u e...
On 3 January 1992, the Director of Personnel notified applicant that because of her inability to meet her recruiting goals, he was recommending her recruiting tour be terminated for substandard duty performance under the provisions of ANGR 35-03, para 6-5c(4). On 20 March 1992, The Adjutant General notified applicant that after a thorough review of the investigating officer's report and applicant's recommendation for involuntary separation from Full-Time National Guard Duty for substandard...
However, a WD AGO Form 24A (Service Record) has recorded a Summary Court Martial Order Number 19 for conviction for being AWOL for the period 17 Jan 50 to about 27 Jan 50 which resulted in a sentence to confinement at hard labor and forfeiture of$50.00 pay. He has not filed a timely request. Applicant alleges that he was never convicted of a criminal offense, and that the 103 days of lost time on his DD Form 2 14 are incorrect.
However, the evidence provided has established to our satisfaction that the applicant‘s service during the period in question did warrant recognition by award of the Air Medal and that the recommendation for this award was submitted and lost. RECOMMENDATION. We recommend disapproval of the applicant’s request for award of the Distinguished Flying Cross for 15 Jul45 and the Air Medal for Mar 45-Jul45 and Jun 45-Sep 45.
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). On 19 Aug 69, the member was provided a memorandum which included a copy of the medical evaluation and an AF Form 356, Findings and Recommended Disposition of USAF Physical Evaluation Board. On 21 Aug 69, member concurred with the IPEB's findings and subsequently, officials within the Office of the Secretary of the Air Force...
A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, AFBCMR Appeals and SSB Section, HQ AFPC/DPPPAB, states that the previous and subsequent EPRs that applicant submits are not germane to this appeal. A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant states, in summary, that the statements he submitted all agree that the contested report was not written accurately and did not include specific...
The service medical records reflect that applicant was hospitalized from 13 April to 10 July 1987 on the psychiatric ward, with his discharge date coinciding with his discharge date from the Air Force. Noting that the medical aspects of this case are explained by the BCMR Medical Consultant (Exhibit C), DPPD stated they were not in complete agreement with his comments and recommendations. In any event, we are not persuaded that the disability for which the applicant is currently receiving...
Applicant was honorably discharged on 24 April 1996 under the provisions of AFI 36-3208 (Personality Disorder) in the grade of airman. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Council, states that The Chief Medical Consultant, AFBCMR, Medical Advisor SAF applicant s last Personnel hospitalization at Wilford Hall Medical Center (WHMC) between February and March 1996, did not affirm the previous diagnoses of dissociative amnesia, post-traumatic stress disorder, and panic disorder and he was found only to have a...
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 97-01345 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: Yes A(JG 1 4 1998 APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The error committed by the Physjcal Evaluation Board (PEB) and the Physical Review Council (PRC) in 1963 be corrected and, instead of being separated with severance pay, his records show he had length of service of 20 years and was retired in the grade of master sergeant. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The PEB...
This generated a training allocation notification R I T , which clearly indicated a three-year RDSC would be incurred, and applicant was required to initial the following statements on the RIP, I I I accept training and will obtain the required retainability" and ''1 understand upon completion of this training I will incur the following active duty service commitments (ADSC) ' I . Although documentation of counseling does not exist and applicant denies that it occurred, they believe it's a...
On 28 Apr 98, the applicant provided additional evidence and requested that the Board reconsider her application (Exhibit F) . The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The discharge complies with directives in effect at the time of her discharge.