b AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION O F MILITARY RECORDS RECORD O F PROCEEDINGS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 97-01425 HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His record be corrected to show twenty years of service with no break. Air Force Regulation 33- 3 paragraph 3 - 7 ( h ) states that an applicant must submit a letter through CBPO retirement u n a to HQ AFMPC/DPMAPA requesting approval to enlist. 97-01425 enlistment requests prior to 1 April 1987, and find no evidence that the...
c , i IN THE MATTER OF: -- DOCKET NUMBER: 97-01440 AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS COUNSEL: NONE RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS JUL 2 11998 HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His discharge be upgraded to honorable. Records indicate that on 1 August 1970, the applicant, in the grade of sergeant, received an undesirable discharge. After reviewing the evidence of record, we are not persuaded that applicant's discharge should be upgraded.
This 2 AFBCMR 97-0 1546 policy was initiated on 28 Feb 79 specifically to preclude personnel from subsequently (after promotion selections) submitting someone for a decoration with a retroactive decoration effective date (close out) so as to put them over the selection cutoff score. Had the recommendation not been misplaced, we believe the RDP would have been requested in sufficient time for the award to be credited for promotion consideration during cycle 96E5. While we note the applicant...
The United States Air Force (USAF) be ordered to submit an f duty (LOD) explanation as to why it denied report entered -by th Air National for the emotional condition suffered while on active His disability rating be adjusted to one of not less than 30 3 . On 22 January 1997, the Secretary of the Air Force directed that applicant be separated from active service for physical disability under the provision of 10 USC 1203, with severance Pay On 29 January 1997, the applicant was notified that...
The Board notes that since his disqualification in 1992 from aviation service, applicant has completed a Bachelor of Science Degree, is working towards a Masters Degree in International Relations, was named NCO of the Year and was promoted to the grade of technical sergeant. Therefore, the Board believes applicant's ASC should be changed to '9D" (Active - nonrated aircrew member) rather than "05" (Disqualification - failure of nonrated aircrew member to attain aircrew qualification) and he...
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's requests 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 facts and opinions stated in the advisory opinions appear to be based on the evidence of record and have not been rebutted by applicant.
Air Force Regulation 36-89, Oct 77, stated eligibility criteria for promotion to captain as two years time in grade as a first lieutenant. A complete copy of the DPPPO evaluation is at Exhibit C. The Appeals and SSB Branch, AFPC/DPPPA, reviewed this application and noted that the applicant was selected for promotion by the CY97A (3 Feb 97) lieutenant colonel selection board. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable error 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). 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.
Or, in the alternative, correction of his OSB to reflect the 4. correct duty organization, command level, and academic education; his PRF be changed to a DP recommendation; and, that he be granted a Special Selection Board (SSB). AFBCMR 97-0 1 62 1 The AFBCMR granted the applicant a SSB by the CY94A lieutenant colonel board based on the information contained on the CY94A OSB. We note that the applicant received SSB consideration by the CY94A board with the corrected assignment history and...
While at a bar on 27 January 1993, applicant was introduced to the victim by a male acquaintance known by the victim. On 8 March 1994, the HQ Air Mobility Command (AMC) JA found the case legally sufficient to support discharge and recommended applicant's request to retire in lieu of discharge be denied. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Retirements Branch at HQ AFPC/DPPRR reviewed this appeal and states that the recommendation by applicant's commander for discharge for civilian conviction was...
He requests award of the Air Force Good Conduct Medal (AFGCM), lSt and Znd Oak Leaf Clusters (OLCs), National Defense Service Medal (NDSM) (sent to applicant), Arctic Service Medal, the Small Arms Expert Marksmanship Ribbon, an additional Air Force Outstanding Unit Award (AFOUA), ZOLC, for the 381St and 384th Security Police Squadrons, the Air Force Longevity Service Award (AFLSA) Ribbon, lOLC (issued to applicant), the Air Reserve Forces Meritorious Service Medal (sent to applicant) and 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). Accordingly, applicant's request is denied.
Therefore, based on his most recent information, the applicant signed a housing lease on 1 April 1997 at the $2500 rate believing this was the correct rate. After he signed the lease, the applicant was informed there was a change to the JFTR and his OHA rate would be $2300. LEROY k5xwd-9 T. BASEMAN Panel Chair 4 DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON, DC Office of the Assistant Secretary AF'BCMR 97-01 692 AUG 1 4 1998 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the...
In support of his request, applicant submits a personal statement, copies of his PRF for the P0696B Board, a Performance Feedback Worksheet (PFW), a statement from his rater, his Field Grade Officer Performance Report (OPR), closing 29 February 1996, and additional documents associated with the issues cited in his contentions (Exhibit A). If the Board finds that the documentation was unjust and corrective action is appropriate, then for the reasons indicated above, DPAIP2 recommended one of...
A complete copy of the DPPPRA evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: By letter, dated 30 Jul 97, counsel requested that no action be taken on the applicant's case until prior to the submission of additional documentary evidence. However, counsel indicated that it was his understanding that any award to an individual for a military decoration may be upgraded upon submission of proper evidence and proof that the records are in error (Exhibit...
The Board recommended that applicant not be retained in the Air Force and that he be discharged with a general discharge. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant's counsel submitted a letter, dated 3 November 1997, stating that he and the applicant agree that applicant was ineligible for favorable treatment due to the administrative action. A copy of counsel's letter is attached at Exhibit E. 4 ADDITIONAL...
Applicant? The appropriate Air Force off ices evaluated applicant I s request and provided advisory oplnions to the Board recommending the application be deniec (Exhibit C). The advisory opir2ions were forwarded to the applicart for review and response (Exhibit D1.
He assumed that his 7-level training had begun at that time, as did his supervisors, and that, when the correction to his promotion dates was approved, the mandatory 18 months of OJT training would be backdated also. In support of his amended request, the applicant provided a copy of his Classification/On-the-Job Training Actions, dated 29 September 1997 (see Exhibit A). Exhibit C. Letter, ANG/MPPU, dated 3 March 1998, with Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 25 March 1998. b H A R L E S E....
To adjust applicant's .retirement date would not: be - consistent with the intent of the law; : BS At the time of his retirement, the overlap of marriage and his creditablé service ‘in determining eligibility to retired pay was 19 years, 11 months, and 29 days. THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected: to show .that he was not released from active duty on 31 August 1992.and: ‘retired for length ’ case...
f o r a 31TY move from The accessorial charge The appllcart is :--c+- -.ls - 7 i 37-,217 45 ILTT stated that after a thorough review of the records, they can find no evidence of miscounseling or an error on the part of the Thus, ILTT recommended the application be denied Government. After a t h o r o u g h review of the evidence of record and applicant s submission, we are unpersuaded that he should be reimbursed additional expenses for moving his sailboat. Diamond, Member Mr. Henry RGmG...
The sentence was adjudged on 24 October 1957 and, on 31 October 1957, the sentence was approved and the record of trial was forwarded for action under Article 65b. The record of trial was forwarded to the Judge Advocate General of the USAF for review by a Board of Review. The second AWOL took place the day following applicant’s release from confinement for the first AWOL.
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON, DC SEP 8 9 1998 Office of the Assistant Secretary AFBCMR 97-01778 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 pertin Force relating t corrected to sho Benefit Plan (SB coverage...
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE MATTER OF: JUN 11 1998 DOCKET NUMBER: 97-01791 - COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT: The nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 initiated on 15 Oct 96 and imposed on 25 Nov 96 be set aside and removed from his records, and that all rights, privileges, and benefits taken from him because of the Article 15 be restored. On 21 Feb 9 7 , the appellate autholrity partially granted the...
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Director of Personnel Program Management, HQ ARPC/DPAD, states that their office received two letters in behalf of the applicant recommending approval of his request for a HYT waiver. At the time of receipt of these two letters the applicant was erroneously given an adjusted HYT date of 1 August 2000. 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...
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed this application and indicated that the first time the report was considered in the promotion process was cycle 95A6 to technical sergeant (promotions effective Aug 94 - Jul 95). The applicant has failed to provide letters of support from anyone in the rating chain of the contested report. A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant...
The facts surrounding applicar-z ' s separation f r o x the Air Naticrdl Guard and A i r Force Reserve are m k n o w n inr.srnucli as the discharge correspondence is not available. T h e appropriate Air Force o f f I C E ?--aluated applicant Is request ar,d z 1 p r c m i d e a ar, advisory o p i n i s a t h e Board recommerLdir~: t h e was application be denied (Exhicx 13 . AvaAable Master Personnel Recgl-3s C. Advisory Opinion D. E. Applicant I s Response F. AFBCMR L t r to Applicant, d t...
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO: 97-01826 (Case 2) COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO I Applicant requests that the narrative reason for separation be changed from marginal performer to convenience of the government; that his reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 2P be change to a 1; and that his separation code of JEM be changed. The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions...
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO: 97-01841 m COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES Applicant requests that he be awarded the medal designated for service in the Desert Storm War. 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) .
A I R FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 97 COUNSEL: NONE 01879 HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The narrative reason f o r his separation be changed to allow eligibility to be considered for a commission in the Air National Guard (ANG); or, eligibility to enlist in the ANG. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant’s request to change the reason for discharge was denied by the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) on...
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'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.
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 master personnel record does not contain a discharge case however, record does contain a report of proceeding whereby the applicant was reduced fiom grade of Corporal to Private First Class on 12 Jul48. Applicant did not identifjl any specific errors in processing nor provide facts which warrant an upgrade in 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 advisory opinion was forwarded to counsel for review and response (Exhibit D). 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.
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON DC E B 1 2 7399 I Office of the Assistant Secretary AFBCMR 97-01931 MEMOKANDlJM 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: records. partment of the Air Force relating to be corrected to show that the period 9 May d all reference thereto be deleted from...
On 17 Feb 98, the Board considered and denied an application for correction of military records pertaining to the subject applicant, in which he requested that his records be corrected to reflect award of the DFC, Small Arms Expert Marksmanship Ribbon (SAEMR), and the China Service Medal (see AFBCMR 97-01967), with Exhibits A through D). In view of the above, and in recognition of the applicant’s service to the Nation, a majority of the Board recommends that the applicant’s records be...
On 17 Feb 98, the Board considered and denied an application for correction of military records pertaining to the subject applicant, in which he requested that his records be corrected to reflect award of the DFC, Small Arms Expert Marksmanship Ribbon (SAEMR), and the China Service Medal (see AFBCMR 97-01967), with Exhibits A through D). In view of the above, and in recognition of the applicant’s service to the Nation, a majority of the Board recommends that the applicant’s records be...
r AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Special Pay Branch, AFPC/DPAMFl, reviewed this application and indicated that the applicant was given the opportunity to renegotiate his Nurse Anesthetist Incentive Special Pay in 1995 due to an increase in the entitlement from $6000.00 to $15,000.00. According to DPAMF1, they received a Nurse Anesthetist Pay Agreement from the applicant with an effective date of 2 Nov 96. renegotiated ISP anniversary date of 31 Oct 94.
t Air Force Review Boards Agency AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AUG 3 11998 IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 97-01994 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His discharge be upgraded to honorable or general, under honorable conditions. 2 AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Military Personnel Management Specialist, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, states that record of the final discharge action taken by the discharge authority is not on file in the...
The AFBCMR previously considered and denied the applicant I s request that his records be corrected to reflect the addition of an Oak Leaf Cluster to the AM and DFC (see AFBCMR 80- 00947, with Exhibits A through C) . The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant I s requests and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the applicant's requests be denied (Exhibit E). Concerning his request for award of the China War Memorial Medal, the facts and opinions stated in...
AFBCMR 97-02021 AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Retiree Services Branch, AFPC/DPPTR, reviewed this application and states that the member did not elect spouse coverage at retirement. 0 APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant and counsel on 29 Dec 97 for review and response within 30 days. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion...
Air Force officer promotions are a competitive process. A complete copy of this evaluation is appended at Exhibit H. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the advisory opinions and indicated that his rating chain tried to have the duty title updated in the personnel system before the OPR became a matter of record. He asks the Board to correct his record to reflect selection to major as if selected in the promotion zone by the CY95 Major Board.
There is no evidence of Air Force error or injustice. At the time of his divorce from his former spouse, he had no idea what SBP was, nor that he had converted his coverage to SBP coverage. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant's submission, we are not persuaded that his records should be corrected to reflect that he filed a timely election to change his Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) beneficiary from his former spouse to his current spouse.
He was recommended for discharge on 29 May 1996, and recommended for administrative demotion on 6 June 1996. The applicant had five unsatisfactory periods while in the WMP, receiving three LORs, two referral EPRs, and a recommendation for discharge before he began to comply with Air Force standards. Therefore, we recommend his records be corrected as indicated below.
On 2 January 1968, the Secretary of the Air Force approved the applicant's request for reappointment in the Air Force Reserve in the grade of captain and for assignment to the Retired Reserve. After review of the records, DAO found no error or injustice in the application of procedures in effect at the time of applicant's appointment. - Letters from applicant, dated 30 Dec 97 and Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Mr. Jackson A. Hauslein, Member Mr. Michael P. Higgins, Member Panel Chair The...
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON DC Office of the Assistant Secretary AFBCMR 97-02087 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 1 16), it is directed that: provisions of AFI 36-3208 by reason of “Secretarial Authority,” with separation code “KFF.” records of the Department of the Air Force relating to e...
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Retirement Ops Section, Directorate of Personnel Program Management, AFPC/DPPRSO, reviewed this application and states that currently, they have no provisions in their procedures or in the law to allow retirement in the grade of chief warrant officer To and they have no authority to circumvent current laws. At that time, the AFBCMR can direct that the pertinent miiitary records of the Department of the Air Force be corrected to show the applicant was retired in the...
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE MATTER'OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 97-02105 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No Applicant requests she be allowed to receive an annunity under 4 the Reserve Component Survivor Benefit Plan (RCSBP). The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). eligible to receive an annuity under the Survivor Benefit Plan if...
On 2 May 1996, a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) convened at the request of the First Sergeant to determine the effects of the applicant's knee problems on his progress in the Weight Management Program (WMP). The applicant was ineligible for promotion consideration to the grade of master sergeant during cycle 9737 since his Weight Status Code indicated unsatisfactory progress in the WMP, on or after the Promotion Eligibility Cutoff Date (PECOD) . The applicant was originally rejected for...
Two letters of evaluation (LOEs) (Supplemental Evaluation Sheets, AF Forms 7 7 ) , for the periods 7 March 1984 through 26 June 1984 and 3G November 1990 through 15 May 1991 be placed in his OSRs, or all LOEs should be removed. Applicant was awarded the MSM, lOLC for the period 30 October 1993 through 31 July 1995 by Special Order GA-40 dated 11 September 1995. I A complete copy of the Air Force Exhibit C. evaluation is attached at The Chief, Joint Officer Management, AFPC/DPAJ, reviewed...
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant attended an SBP pre-retirement briefing on 28 August 1996 and signed an SBP Report on Individual Person (RIP) acknowledging his responsibility to complete an SBP election, with his wife's concurrence prior to his 1 November 1996 retirement. After thoroughly reviewing the applicant's submission and the evidence of record, we are not persuaded that the requested relief is There is no evidence to support the applicant's warranted. Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR,...
(Exhibit D) The Air Force Management Level Review Recorder, AFPC/DPPPEB, recommended denial of applicant's request that his PRF for the CY91B lieutenant colonel board be upgraded to reflect a "Definitely Promote, " stating the applicant was unsuccessful in his request (to the Officer Personnel Records Review Board) to have the OPR closing 29 April 1991 removed; therefore, the PRF should stand. Noting applicant's argument that A i r Force promotion boards - violate 10 USC 616 and 617, JA...