The commander to inves STATEMENT OF FACTS: An anonymous letter, dated 2 November 1996, was forwarded to the ASTS WMP was not e mentioned as being given AW commander e the letter's requested the STS commander responded on 2 March 1996, allegations. She was also informed that she could file an IG complaint if there was evidence a specific right was denied or there was a breach of established policies or procedures. When the requested medical documentation was not received within the...
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. 97-02235 The Retirement Ops Section, AFPC/DPPRR, also reviewed this application and states that applicant is correctly projected to retire in the grade of technical sergeant, which is the grade he is holding on the date of his retirement. c. The applicant’s retirement order, DAFSO AC-014238, 15 Aug 97 (Atch 4), reflects he will be relieved from active duty on 3 1 Jan 98 and retired 1 Feb 98 with 20 years, 05 months, and 23 days for...
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 97-02241 COUNSEL: ANTHONY STEFANSON HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT: Applicant is the widow of a former service member, who requests that she receive the remaining annual payments of her deceased spouse's aviation continuation pay (ACP) for 1991 through 1996. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Retention Analyst, AFPC/DPAR, states that applicant's counsel incorrectly states that...
The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied the applicant's request for upgrade of his discharge and changed of reason for discharge (Exhibit C). The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request for change of his RE Code and provided an advisory opinion to the Board (Exhibit D). The decision of the AFDRB appears to be based on the evidence of record and have not been rebutted by applicant.
However, although documentation of that counseling does not exist, applicant denies that it occurred, and a copy of the PCS notification RIP is no longer available to permit verification of applicant's signature accepting the assignment, they believe it's a reasonable presumption that competent counseling was provided and that applicant was in fact aware of the ADSC which would be incurred for training (Exhibit C with Attachments 1 through 6). The Air not exist, applicant denies that it...
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 Zxhibit E. a After careful consideration of applicant's request and the available evidence of record, including the investigative report, we find insufficient evidence of error or injustice to...
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 will only be reconsidered upon the submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with this application. REQUESTED ACTION: ' Member wants sex/gender marker of male on master ' personnel record and master personnel files changed 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). (2) Applicant has not submitted any documentation to substantiate his claim that he re- submitted a recommendation for the Air Medal or a request for reconsideration to upgrade the Aerial Achievement Medal to the Air Medal, or any responses to such submissions. We recommend disapproval of the applicant’s request for his Aerial...
, AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 97- 02288 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO AUG 1 4 1998 APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT: His Air Force Reserve time, before he went on active duty, be moved to the end of his active duty in order for his last six (6) years of service be reflected as Air Force Reserve time. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant's submission, we note that when the applicant was found...
AFBCMR 97-023 17 - His ratings were "4" and "2" The applicant had two Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs) in his (Referral report), records. The applicant has provided no evidence of error or injustice in his records and the Board should deny his application. A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit E. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and indicated, in part, that the documentation he submitted to request the...
The appropriate Air Force office (AFPC/DPPPWB) evaluated applicant I s request and provided an initial advisory opinkon 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. Pursuant to the Board's request , AFPC/DPPPWB provided an additional advisory opinion to the Board (Exhibit F).
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO: 97-02320 (Case 2) COUNSEL : HEARING DESIRED: NO , Applicant requests that an Article 15, imposed on 17 June 1983, be removed from his master personnel record. The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). 4UTH: N 1 -AFU-90-3 iestroy after 5 years 01 when no longer...
The revised Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) for the CY96C Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board (P0596C), with a "Definitely Promote" recommendation, be accepted for file. DPPPEB stated that the applicant had a PRF for the CY94 Lieutenant Colonel Board upgraded to a 'DP" based upon the addition of new information to his record (OPR content change, duty title change and Air Force Commendation Medal updated). Based on the assessments provided by HQ AFPC/DPAISl and HQ AFPC/DPPPEB and...
2 AFBCMR 97-02342 DPPPA did not concur with applicant's request to rewrite the contested report to include different duty information. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant stated a key issue is whether improper command policy had been issued by his higher headquarters at the time or if his entire direct chain of command and OPR processing personnel misunderstood command policy, thus resulting in an incomplete OPR lacking a definitive ISS endorsement by both the rater and...
In support of his request, the applicant attached a copy of the cover letter, the notification letter, his DD Form 1883 (Survivor Benefit Plan Election Certificate). The member was provided all the necessary information to make an informed decision. He stated that he reviewed the DD Form 1883 which he completed and for the first time read the sentence stating the SBP is a permanent irrevocable decision.
If, as the applicant contends, the recruiter then had him fill out a second medical history form concealing this history of early childhood asthma, the applicant should not have been considered a fraudulent entry, but rather an erroneous entry level separation should have been the reason for his dismissal. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Military Personnel Management Specialist, Separations Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, states that they concur with the...
Ltr, ANG/MPPU, dtd Mar 13, 1998, w/Atchs DEPARTMENT O F THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON DC - OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY 1 April 1998 MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR FROM: SAFPC 1535 Command Drive EE Wing, 3d Floor Andrews AFF3, MD 20762-7002 SUBJECT: Correction Board Case of AFBCMR Docket Number 97-02356 This memorandum responds to your March 24,1998 request for a SAFPC opinion on subject case. Through no fault of the applicant, the reappointment application was not received at ANGMPPS in sufficient...
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.
The applicant received a "Promote" recommendation on the PRF prepared for the CY92A Col Board. On 13 December 1993, the applicant filed an Inspector General (IG) complaint alleging that the former Air Force Intelligence Command Commander (AFIC/CC) convened a board to 'rack and stack" officers eligible for promotion to be considered by the CY92A Col Board and then used the priority list to award "Definitely Promote (DP) " recommendations in violation of the governing regulation. ...
A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. They The Superintendent, Military Testing Section, HQ AFPC/DPPPWE, states that with regard to the promotion testing study time and receipt of study material, the time frames apply .in most cases and obviously don't apply in situations where the BCMR directs supplemental promotion consideration. 3 policy, the results of this test were use in his promotion consideration for the 95A7 cycle as well as the 94A7 and 93A7 cycles. 5 Mrs....
On 4 Sep 97, the applicant was requested to provide a copy of his Travel Voucher for TDY to verify that he was in the Area of Responsibility for Operation Desert Shield/Storm (Exhibit C) . Further, DVA stated that the applicant was separated from the Air Force in Apr 91, shortly after his return to Italy from the Persian Gulf, and had no need to save TDY orders or a PERSCO (Personnel Readiness and Deployment Teams) statement (see Exhibit H). Insufficient relevant evidence has been...
On 1 August 1994, he was detailed by Captain M--- to return to light duty until 1 January 1995 at which time this restriction was to expire. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Military Personnel Division, Directorate of Personnel, AFRC/DPM, reviewed the application and states that although applicant's request for correction of military records contains no documentation of his placement on "light duty," it is highly likely that his active duty treating physician may have erroneously given him...
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.
Accordingly, there is no need to recite these facts in this Record of Proceedings, AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed this appeal. If recommended, this is probably why he was never promoted. We do not doubt the applicant's assertion that his supervisor told him he was being recommended for promotion to master sergeant.
ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 4GN 2 2 1998 AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 97-02414 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: NO Y RESUME OF CASE On 28 January 1998, the Board considered applicant's 28 August 1997 application requesting that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. A Discharge Review Board convened in April 1958 and considered the issues in the applicant's application for correction of military record and they concur...
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C) . Further, the issues raised in this application were all raised in some form during the processing of the original actions, and were discussed in the legal reviews at that time. Due to the fact the applicant had more than 20 years active service, the action to DFR was processed as a “dual action” case so that consideration of...
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 DD Form 149 B. If a cadet is not commissioned on the date scheduled, but will meet commissioning requirements within the fiscal year, the commander may change the DOC according to AFROTCI 36- 1 1, chapter 2.
The appropriate Air Force off ice 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.
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 97-02478 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable or general. Applicant's request for a change to his discharge was denied by the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) on 12 August 1955. DPPRS stated that the records indicate the applicant’s military service was reviewed and appropriate action was taken.
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE MATTER OF: , - 1 - DOCKET NUMBER: 97-02486 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT : He'be retired by reason of physical disability, rather than for length of service. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Medical Consultant, AFBCMR, reviewed this application and states that the applicant should have been placed on medical hold prior to his retirement, evaluated in the disability evaluation system,...
At the time, she was in a Safe Haven status, as opposed to Designated Place status, and should not have been allowed to receive a household goods shipment. Since she had already received 2 AFBCMR 97-02495 household goods on the date she entered Designated Place status on 18 Oct 96, all Safe Haven/Designated Place entitlements stopped. Accordingly, we recommend that the applicant's records be corrected to reflect that he was 3 AFBCMR 97-02495 entitled to Safe Haven benefits until 11 Dec 96...
Applicant's submission is at Exhibit A. i' 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 the available evidence of record, we find insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant corrective action. The Board staff is directed to inform applicant of this...
He could have elected former spouse SBP coverage for her during the 1992 open enrollment. However, spouse premiums could be terminated following divorce if the member additionally selected Option 4. He could have elected former spouse SBP coverage for her during the 92 open enrollment.
Axis 11: Personality Disorder Not Otherwise Specified. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Military Personnel Mgmt Spec, AFPC/DPPRS, reviewed this application and states this case has been reviewed for separation processing and there are no errors or irregularities causing an injustice to the applicant. This evaluation in July 1996 resulted in a diagnosis of Personality Disorder, Not Otherwise Specified as noted in a letter to his commander signed by a...
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. The Staff Judge Advocate, HQ AFPC/JA, reviewed the application and believes that the relief sought by the applicant (with the exception of his request that his 1984 OER be removed) should be granted and the actions recommended by HQ ARPC/DA be taken in this case. The applicant submitted an application to the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR 95-01 971 , dated 21 July 1995) requesting he be...
The relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the AFDRB Hearing Record (Exhibit C) . APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A complete copy of the AFDRB Hearing Record was forwarded to the applicant on 29 January 1998, for review and response within 30 days. THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that on 13 July 1988, he was discharged with service characterized as...
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit F , The Chief Medical Consultant, AFBCMR, review the application and states that records clearly show the applicant was fit for duty through all the years of his active duty service, and, while having some residual problems relating to his Korean War experiences, he was well and able zo perform his dEties up to the time of h i s retirement, He is being compensated appropriately by the DVA for his service-connected, but not unfitting,...
He be considered for promotion to lieutenant colonel by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for the CY92B Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, with inclusion of a corrected Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) and the Meritorious Service Medal, first oak leaf cluster (MSM, loLC), in his officer selection record (OSR). We also agree and recommend that the report be corrected as indicated below and that his record be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by an SSB for the...
97-02609 AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Director of Personnel Program Management, ARPC/DPKB, reviewed the application and states that after several conversations with 419 MSS/DPMP, it was discovered that before a member is assigned to the unit they are briefed on the R/R year requirements and the points requirement as well as satisfactory service requirement. After reviewing the evidence of record, we believe the possibility exists that applicant was not fully aware of the requirements...
The AFI, as currently written, may make it impossible for commanders to remove officers from promotion lists who have a date of rank and pay date specified earlier than the date of the order that announces the promotion, but that is a concern that should be addressed in re-writing the AFI. In instances where officers receive promotions with dates of rank and effective dates backdated to specific dates, the only period of time when promotion propriety actions can be initiated, is between...
DPPPRA stated that there is no Korea clasp for the Army of Occupation Medal. ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Pursuant to the Board's request for clarification of an item in the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) Magazine, indicating the Army of Occupation-Far East Medal was awarded for overseas duty in Korea, during the period 3 September 1945 - 29 June 1949; and whether or not the applicant meets the criteria for receiving credit for serving in Korea, HQ AFPC/DPPPRA provided the following...
The officer performance report (OPR) rendered for the period 20 August 1995 through 7 June 1996 be declared void and removed from his records. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. The Chief, Field Activities Division, AFPC/DPSFC, reviewed the application and states that they are not in the business of assessing a commander’s decision making authority when assigning administrative actions to subordinates. After reviewing the evidence of record, we are of 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 the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). Exhibits : A.
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: c >. A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief Medical Consultant, AFBCMR, reviewed this application and states that while there can be no change in the reason for the applicant's separation, it would seem appropriate to consider a change in his reenlistment eligibility code to accommodate his desire to return to the military, with waiver if he is otherwise qualified for commissioning. However, the Air Force Board .for Correction of...
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit H. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states that while it is true that he was ineligible for promotion consideration during cycle 9737, his request is to be considered by cycle 9539, a cycle for which he was eligible, but for which he was not given the opportunity to compete. After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record, we are not persuaded that applicant should be...
c. On 1 January 1994, he was retired for length of service in the Reserve grade of Air Force Review Boards Agency RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE MATTER OF: AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS DOCKET NUMBER: 97-02678 pru~ 2 7 1998 m COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to show that he.resigned his regular commission and retired as a reserve officer. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Staff Judge Advocate, AFPC/JA, reviewed this application...
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The applicant has provided no information from the evaluators on either of the contested reports. It appears the contested report was accomplished in direct accordance with Air Force policy in effect at the time it was rendered.
Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Washington, D.C., provided an investigative report which is attached at Exhibit C. The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit D). Applicant's response to the advisory opinion is at Exhibit F. After careful consideration of applicant's request and the available evidence of record, we find insufficient...
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 97-02693 0 4 1998 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be reinstated to active Air Force Reserve status. We note that the applicant was given the opportunity to submit justification to support his retention in the Air Force Reserve in 1993, prior to his discharge in November 1993. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented...
He was entered into the weight management program (WMP) because he failed to meet the Air Force weight standards. He gained more than 70 pounds in 3 months and it was due to the thyroid problem. The board recommended applicant be separated from the Air Force with an honorable discharge, without probation and rehabilitation.