Applicant's counsel further states the first sentence of AFI 36- 2503 states \\Don't use administrative demotions when it is more appropriate to take actions specified by . A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit E. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the advisory opinions and states he did everything in accordance with regulations when the Article 15 was offered and he chose a court-martial. The Commander clearly consulted JA and...
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). 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.
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 9 5 - 0 2 7 0 1 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO 2-5’1997 APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT: The closeout date of the Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM) be changed from 4 Apr 95 to an unspecified date in Mar 95,. and that the AFCM be considered in the promotion process for cycle 9535 for promotion to the grade of staff sergeant. closeout date of the AFCM should have been in Mar 95. Current Air...
On 18 January 1994, the applicant received a second LOR for failure to pay a debt to the Army and Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES). In regards to the applicant stating that the contested EPRs are inconsistent with previous performance; the EPR was designed to provide a rating for a specific period of time based on the performance noted during that period, not based on previous performance. A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit E. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF 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). Section 8961, Title 10, U.S.C., (Atch 5) states: “Unless entitled to a higher retired grade under some other provision of law a regular or reserve of the Air Force who retires other than for physical disability retires in the regular or reserve grade that he holds on the date of his retirement.” Again, based on the Comptroller...
The rater stated that he originally rated the applicant an overall " 5 " rating. A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Associate Chief, Military Justice Division, Air Force Legal Services Agency, AFLSA/JAJM, states that the applicant does not 2 specifically seek relief with regard to the Article 15 action. - A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. The Chief , Evaluation Procedures Section, HQ AFPC/DPPPEP, states that while the first...
However, should the AFBCMR grant the applicant's request, his former effective date and date of rank for master sergeant was 1 June 1 9 9 6 . A copy of this Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant states, in summary, that he is providing information to prove t h a t the two Article 1 5 s received were unjust and t h e commander made his decision based solely on a travel itinerary that was provided in a written presentation put...
It now appears that his circumstances have changed and he wishes to remain on active duty or join the Reserves. I/ Air Force Review Boards Agency DEPA~TMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON, DC Office of the Assistant Secretary MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS FROM: SAF/MIB SUBJECT: AFBCMR case 0 AFBCMR Docket No. Since the only reason the Board recommended, and I approved, any relief for this applicant in the first place was to alleviate...
P Applicant's complete submission, including a statement from-the recruiter, is attachedrat Exhibit A. I STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 24 Jul 95, the applicant was released from the Air Force Reserve under the provisions of AFI 36-3203 (Completion of Required Active Duty Training) in the grade of staff sergeant. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Skills Management Branch, AFPCbPPAE, reviewed this application and indicated that the provisions of the current Prior Service Grade Determination policy...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 97-02747 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be reinstated for 60 days of leave sold. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force...
Although the applicant provided a written recommendation for award of the DFC for a specific mission which occurred on 1 7 February 1945, in his application he requests award of the DFC for completion of 25 combat missions. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORC E EVALUATIO N: The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states that at the time the written DFC recommendation was submitted, he had completed 26 missions. ...
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was unfit for continued military service at the time of his separation and should have been processed through the Air Force Disability Evaluation System. The applicant has not submitted any documentation to show that he was unfit due to a physical disability under the provisions of Title 10, USC at the time of his voluntary discharge from active duty. After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record and noting the applicant’s contentions, we are not persuaded...
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). Requested Action. Applicant appeared before a Board of Officers without counsel convened to review the pertinent facts and circumstances and make recommendation to the discharge authority if he should be discharged fiom the service.
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 97-0 Qq$)lg 1999 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Officer Effectiveness Report (OER) closing 29 July 1966 be investigated and removed from his records and that he be provided a list of agencies that have had access to this effectiveness report or abstracts therefrom since it was filed. However, other than applicant’s own assertions, we find that no...
The MRI done on her lower back showed herniation of discs on L2 and L3. Evidence of record establishes beyond all reasonable doubt that the applicant was medically qualified for continued active duty, that the reason for her separation was proper, and that no error or injustice occurred in this case. The applicant was not referred to or considered by the Air Force Disability Evaluation System and evidence of record indicates that she was medically qualified for continued active service at...
On 20 September 1994, the AFBCMR considered and granted applicant’s requests to void the EPRs closing 30 November 1990 and 24 May 1991; reinstatement of his promotion to master sergeant, retroactive to 1 February 1991; reinstatement on active duty; and supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of senior master sergeant for all appropriate cycles, beginning with cycle 94S8. A complete copy of the Record of Proceedings is attached at Exhibit C. HQ AFPC did not provide the applicant...
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). The facts and opinions stated in the advisory opinion appear to be based on the evidence of record and have not been rebutted by applicant.
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON, DC 2 4 JUL 1998 Office of the Assistant Secretary AFBCMR 97-02785 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: application was partially approved by competent authority in the amount of $78 1.25. rds of the Department of the Air Force relating...
You, did, at or near AFB, 16 July 1997 an official statement, to wit: "The check that was written to the tten by my wife,11 which Child Care Center +and bounc statement was totally false, en known by you to be so FB between on or about 'false. 14 July 7, with intent to deceive, , an off5cial statement, to wit: "The make to check t the Child Care Center and bounced was written by my wife," which statement was totally false, then known by you to be so false. However, should the board grant...
The records indicate applicant's military service was reviewed and appropriate action was taken. (Exhibit C) APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant's mother provided a statement from the deputy clerk of the court explaining the violation and probation. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant's Mother, dated 20 N o v 97. , w/atchs.
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions zc the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit 0 . The advisory opinions were forwarded to the applicant and counsel on 16 February 1998 for review and response (Exhibit 2 1 . Applicant's response to the advisory opinions is at Exhibit E .
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C ) . Applicant's response to the advisory opinions is at Exhibit E. After noting applicant's response to the advisory opinions (Exhibit E), on 2 0 Mar 98, the applicant was requested to provide more specific information regarding exactly what correction she was seeking to her military records (Exhibit F ) . Exhibits : A.
The Officer Selection Brief (OSB) reviewed by the Calendar Year 1997C (CY97C) Central Major Board reflect a Duty Air Force Specialty Code (DAFSC) and duty title of I1K12A3D/Chief , Navigator Training, Instructor Navigator," rather than 1112A3D/Navigator.ii His corrected record be considered for promotion to the grade 2. of major by Special Selection Board (SSB) for the CY97C board. The official source document, AF Form 2096, from which the update was finally made at HQ AFPC was dated 13...
In support, applicant provides, ir- part, a reaccomplished E P K , his similar appeals submitted under AFI 36- 2401, and statements from the contested report s indorser and commander. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant's submission, we are not persuaded that the contested EPR should be replaced or that his RE code should be changed. Neither the applicant nor the evaluators have submitted persuasive evidence specifically demonstrating why the contested report is...
discovered the absence of an AF E'orrr 63 in his records upon receipt of that RIP; however, that ;s irzelevant to The issue that h e i n c u r e d the A D S C . However, we do not find his uncorroborated contentions, in and by themselves, sufficiently compelling to conclude that he unwittingly incurred an ADSC for training he would not have accepted had he been aware of the ADSC prior to entering the training. Exhibit B.
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 97-02864 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO A% 1 4 1998 APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to reflect that he was authorized 45 days of Permissive Temporary Duty (PTDY), and that 45 days of leave be restored to his current leave account. In support of his appeal, the applicant provided medical documentation pertaining to his baby daughter. After reviewing the available...
In support of his request, the applicant submitted a copy of the Airman Personnel Records Review Board (APRRB) decision and statements from the rater and indorser of the contested report. PERIOD ENDING 21 May 1987 21 May 1988 21 May 1989 * 21 May 1990 (EPR) OVERALL EVALUATION 9 9 9 4 21 May 1991 21 May 1992 21 May 1993 21 May 1994 21 May 1995 21 May 1996 29 Sep 1996 Note: * Contested report. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Enlisted Promotion Branch, AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed the application and...
Effective l October 1996, Title 10, USC 14502 authorized the convening of Special Selection Boards (SSBs) for Reserve Officers who were not selected for promotion and allege the action of the board was contrary to law or involved material error or the board did not have before its consideration material information. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Director of Personnel Program Management, HQ ARPC/DPJA, reviewed this application and...
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 9 7 - 0 2 9 0 4 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT: The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 1 Dec 9 3 through 3 0 Nov 94 be declared void and removed from his records. What DPPPA does not understand is that the rater supports removal of the report yet he also states that if he had the opportunity to rewrite the report, he would recommend an...
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). While the applicant may believe he received unfair treatment due to not fitting the perceptions of his senior rater, the Performance Recommendation Form PRF) rendered for the CY94 major selection board appears appropriate in both narrative and overall recommendation and comments were congxuent with%he applicant’s record of...
Exhibit A. code be Applicant's RE code of 2B is defined as "Separated with Applicant's submission is at 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...
There is no indication the applicant was ever recommended for the SS or DFC. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C . We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE MATTER OF: -- c - APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: ] Her name be changed f r o !{! AFB,- L 97-02932 AIR FORCE EVALUATION: viewed this application The Staff Judge Advoca t who and states that it was name appears on all served in the thout a preponderance military records of evidence to the contrary, we must assume the military records reflecting Air Force service by applicant's sister are correct. A complete copy 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). 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. Physical disability evaluation shall include a recommendation or final decision and supporting...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF; DOCKET NUMBER: 97-02952 INDEX CODE 100.00 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: Yes Applicant requests her deceased husband's records be corrected to reflect service in Vietnam. 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...
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 offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). This provides members who are discharged for physical disqualification the opportunity to reenter military service if their medical condition is no longer d i s q u w See H AFRCRSOO Memorandum at Attachment 1 .) s a not eligible for a medical retirement with pay because her disqualifjing medical 3. m condition was found to not have...
set forth in Phe1 Chair/ Attachment: Ltr, HQ AFPC/DPPTR, dtd Oct 3 , 1 9 9 7 , w/Atchs DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON, DC office of the Assistant Secretary AFBCMR 97- 02962 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...
For a decoration to be eligible for consideration in a promotion cycle, the close-out date of the decoration must be on or before the PECD, and the date of the RDP must be before the date of selections for the cycle in question. Current Air Force promotion policy (AFI 36-2502, Table 2.2, Rule 5, Note 2) dictates that before a decoration is credited for a specific promotion cycle, the close-out date of the decoration must be on o r before the promotion eligibility cutoff date (PECD), and the...
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided tan 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.
After careful of applicant’s zsquest and the available evidence csrsid3ra:icn sf z z c a r d , -;;z find no evidence :hat the applicant’s d i s c k z r g e :hias A7c7,” 2°F L , afz3.f ~s-~siaering the facts zxd circumstances l e a d i r i g zz z r ~ e a p ~ l i z z r - : ’ s separation and -:-Fw of the fact t k L a t , ~::z;e: c u r r e r , t standards, the applica:? iliamond, Member Ms. Sophie A. \:;ark, Mernber F i l l members v o t e d to correct the records, as recommended.
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). The facts and opinions stated in the advisory opinions appear to be based on the evidence of record and have not been rebutted by applicant.
Providing the applicant 3 97-02979 I is otherwise eligible (receives an EPR that is not referral or rated a a 2 1 1 or less), the first time the contested report will be considered in the promotion process (provided it is not voided) is cycle 9837 to master sergeant. The author notes there is no comment on the EPR regarding the LOR or the reason he received the LOR. The applicant still has not included any evidence to support his’contention that his commander did not consider all matters...
In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a copy of the contested report, a revised version of the OPR, and statements from the rater and additional rater of the report in question. Evaluation reports receive exhaustive reviews prior to becoming a matter of record and any report can be rewritten to be more hard hitting, to provide embellishments, or enhance the AFBCMR 97-0298 I ratee's promotion potential but the time to do that is before the report becomes a matter of record. THE...
The appropriate Air Force off ices 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). RECOMMENDATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant is of the opinion that no change in the records is warranted and the application shpuld be denied.
On 26 September 1997, the applicant divorced and he submitted a copy of the divorce decree to DFAS-CL, and spouse premiums and coverage have been suspended. 97- 03000 AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief , Retiree Services Branch, Directorate of Pers Program Management, AFPC/DPPTR, reviewed this application and states that when a member fails to make an SBP election prior to retirement or fails to obtain a valid spouse concurrence in an election that does not provide maximum spouse coverage,...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 97-03007 INDEX CODES: 111.02, 126.03 126.04, 131.00 COUNSEL: HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, initiated on 10 Sep 96, and imposed on 19 Sep 96, be set aside and removed from his records. According to counsel, the military has no evidence to support the charges that...
Applicant was honorably discharged on 24 May 1996 under the provisions of AFI 36-3208 (Personality Disorder) with an RE code of 2 C . The BCMR Medical Consultant states that it would seem more reasonable to have arrived at a diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood rather than Personality Disorder, reflecting the applicant's inability to adjust to the military setting. THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to...
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). ~ ~ DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR HEADQUARTERS AIR FORCE PERSONNEL RANDOLPH AIR FORCE BASE TEXAS I i U.S. AIR FORCE I ~ s,, MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR FROM HQ AFPCDPPRS 550 C Street West Ste 11 Randolph AFB 7X 78 150-47 13 i DEC 1 6 887 1 9 4 7 - 1 9 9 7 SUBJECT: Application for Correction of Military Records The applicant, while serving in the...