The LOR is used to reprove, correct, and instruct subordinates who depart from acceptable norms of conduct or behavior, on or off duty, and helps maintain established Air Force standards of conduct or behavior. The relationship was not sexual until after his wife was divorced. The evidence of record reflects that the applicant received an LOR for being involved in an inappropriate and unprofessional relationship with the wife of a subordinate member of the Air Force.
In support of his appeal, the applicant submits copies of his two earlier appeals to the Evaluation Report Appeal Board (ERAB) under AFI 3 6 - 2 4 0 1 , with reaccomplished EPRs submitted to the E m . A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Evaluation Procedures Section, HQ AFPC/DPPPEP, reviewed the application and recommends applicant's request be denied. After reviewing the documentation submitted with this application, it appears the applicant was rated...
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. AFBCMR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinion E. Applicant's Response DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE HEADQUARTERS AIR FORCE PERSONNEL CENTER RANDOLPH AIR FORCE BASE TEXAS MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR FROM: HQ AFPCIOPPTR 550 C Street West Ste 11 Randolph A f 6 TX 78150-471 3 SUBJECT;...
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 97-03048 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO u Applicant requests that his records be corrected to reflect award of the Purple Heart. The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). We recommend denial of applicant's most recent request (DD Form 149, dated 6 October 1997) for...
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit E. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant's counsel reviewed the Air Force evaluations and states that: a. Award of the Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM) or Air Force Achievement Medal (AFAM) for the $1 13,000 renovation of supply facilities he accomplished in June of 1991. b. We recommend disapproval of the applicant’s request for award of the Air Force Com- mendation Medal or Air Force Achievement...
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Military Personnel Management Specialist Separations Branch, AFPC/DPPRS, reviewed the application and states that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive require*ments of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion or the discharge authority and that the applicant was provided full administrative due process. A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit...
Applicant requests that he receive retroactive retired pay based on the over 22 year pay scale for the period 16 December 1963 through 6 June 1989, The appropriate Defense Finance and Accounting Service and Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied The advisory opinions were forwarded to the (Exhibit C). REQUESTED ACTION: Applicant requests retroactive retired pay fiom his retirement date of 27 Dec 1963...
The applicant committed a violation of the Honor Code that was deserving of disenrollment, and none of his arguments can change that fact. The evidence of record reflects that the applicant was disenrolled from the Air Force Academy for an honor code violation. We further note that the Air Force Psrsonnel Board, concerned about the appearance of inconsistent treatment 3 AFBCMR 97-03098 - regarding the applicant‘s case and a similar case of another cadet, returned the applicant’s case 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). In regards to the applicant's request, we note that the experience accrued by the applicant from 1 November 1989 through 17 April 1991 was prior to her being licensed and therefore, is not creditable. C. Direct removal of all documentation from the applicant's record t h a t reflects that t h e y were originally appointed as a...
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion t 3 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, .w.e find insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant corrective action.
After his return tc the United States, he inquired about a request for the 30LC ana was promptly informed t h a t the Replacement Depot had no authority to initiate such a request and since he was being processed f o r release from active duty, there was no way such a request could be considered. It is no longer possible to ascertain whether or not the applicant was eligible for an additional decoratiorA for aerial achievements. After a thorough review of the evidence of record 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). 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 ) . The applicant is requesting several actions we will address the one requesting the Board restore him to the rank of Airman Second Class. - Based upon the information provided we are forwarding this application for correction of military records without recommendation.
The applicant states personnel at the Military Personnel Flight erroneously completed an AF Form 964 and updated this data (MPF) at which indichted he refbsed to get retainability for a PCS to the CONUS. Further, he states that he visited the Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC) on 12 Sep 97 where he was “promoted” to SSgt in an impromptu ceremony. Recommend the applicant’s record be corrected to reflect that he was promoted to staff sergeant effective and with DOR of 1 Sep 97.
Applicant continued in t h e WMP and on 19 October 1990, he received a Letter of Counseling for being 29 % pounds over his MAW. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Acting Chief , Commander's Programs Branch, HQ AFPC/DPSFC, states that maintaining Air Force weight standards is an individual responsibility. A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant states, in summary, that he is not questioning whether the Air Force had the...
The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied the applicant's request for upgrade of his discharge (Exhibit C). The AFDRB Brief 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.
Based on the evidence provided, they recommend denial of applicant's request. Facts of military justice action: On 24 Jul89, the applicant (then Sergwt) was notified of his commander’s intent to impose nonjudicial punishment upon him for: (1) failing to go to his appointed place of duty, i.e., the LOX service plant, at the time prescribed, on 15 3ul89, in violation of Article 86, UCMJ; and, (2) for being derelict in the performance of his duties on 15 Jul89, by failing to service the LOX...
While the delay was not in violation of the applicable regulation, we believe that had it not been for the two-year backlog of awards the squadron had to deal with, the AAM would have been awarded sooner and placed in his record prior to the convening of the CY97C selection board. In view of the 3 97- 03 138 foregoing and in an effort to remove any possibility of an injustice to the applicant, we recommend that his record, to include the AAM for the period 3 June 1993 through 5...
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 from the BCMR Medical Consultant, 08 Jan 98 provides information concerning applicant's medical condition at the time of his discharge. The commander advised that the discharge action was being taken because he had been diagnosed with personality disorder after numerous occasions he was evaluated by the Mental Health...
In accordance with policy, the application was forwarded to this Board f o r further consideration (Exhibit C) The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant I s request and provided ar- advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be dellied (Exhibit C ) . The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). Accordingly, applicant's request is denied.
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 97-03143 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO DE 4 1 13m APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be considered for promotion to the grade of major by a Special Review Board (SRB), to include a personal letter to the Board President, for the Fiscal Year 1998 (FY98) Air Force Reserve Line/Nonline Major Board. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable...
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS JUL 0 7 IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 97-03148 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her general discharge be upgraded to honorable so that she will be eligible to pursue her education under the Montgomery GI Bill. We therefore recommend that the records be corrected as indicated below. Exhibit C. AFDRB Brief.
JUL 23 1998 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF DOCKET NUMBER: 97-03150 INDEX CODE 110.00 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No APPLICANT-REQUESTS THAT: Her under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to honorable. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The reasons the applicant believes the records to be in error or unjust and the evidence submitted in support of the appeal is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT-OF FACTS: The relevant facts...
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit D). DISCUSSION: Evidence of record and medical examinations prior to separation indicate the applicant was fit and medically qualified for continued military service or appropriate separation and did not have any physical or mental condition which would have warranted consideration under the provisions of AFR 35-4. Page 2...
The Air Force states that the proper way to update academic information would have been to forward original transcripts to the Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT). ApplicAt requests specid selection board (SSB) consideration for the CY97B (2 Jun 97) (P0597B) central lieutenant coloneI promotion board with inclusion of two academic degrees. Although the officer does not specifl from which records the degrees were missing, we assume he is referring to his Officer Selection Brief (OSB).
'and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). Review of medical records does not disclose any evidence to support correction of records from length of service retirement to disability retirement or to link his demotion to a nonexistent (at the time) medical condition. RECOMMENDATION: The Medical Consultant is of the opinion that no change in the records is warranted and the application should be denied.
.- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS . Therefore, we believe that the record should be corrected to show that the applicant filed a new election, SGLI 8286, on 1 April 1 9 9 6 . Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 13 Apr 98. k CHARLES E. BENNETT Panel Chair 3 97-03/57 .- DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON, D. C. Office of the Assistant Secretary AFBCMR 97-03 159 SEP 1 6 1998 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the...
AFPC indicated that, to allow the decoration to be considered for AFBCMR 97-03 162 cycle 9736 because the original date was changed from a date after the 31 Dec 96 promotion eligibility cutoff date (PECD) to a date prior to the PECD would not be fair or equitable to other airmen who were not allowed to have the close out date of their decorations changed for promotion consideration. Exceptions to the above policy are only considered when the airman can support a previous submission with...
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C l . The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). _- T h e Board staff is directed to i n f c ~ r n applicant of chis decision.
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Inquiries/BCMR Section Enlisted Promotion Branch, AFPC/DPPPWB, states that current Air Force promotion policy dictates that before a decoration is credited for a specific promotion cycle, the close out date of the decoration must be on or before the Promotion Eligibility Cutoff Date (PECD), and the date of the DECOR-6, Request for Decoration Printout (RDP) , must be before the date of selections for the cycle in question. After reviewing the evidence 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). 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 D). Since the applicant has not provided the reaccomplished OPR, this request is without basis. e. The applicant is now requesting that the OPR be reaccomplished.
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. On 15 Jun 5 1, the discharge authority directed that applicant be discharged under the provisions of...
If neither the member nor the former spouse requests the election change during the one-year eligibility period, former spouse coverage may not be established thereafter. The member 97031 82 remarried 21 Jul90. Recommendation: Although there is no evidence of Air Force error, to preclude a possible injustice, we recommend partial relief: the member's record should be corrected to reflect that on 28 Jun 88 he elected to change SBP spouse and child -vera e to former spouse and child coverage...
The Air Force indicates that AF Form 7 (Airman Military Record), Item 2, reflects the applicant served in the Air Force from 25 Oct 66 - 16 Sep 79, with two tours in Taiwan: 30 Apr 67 - 30 May 68 2 JUl 69 - 2 OCt 70 Airlift Squadron Organizational Maintenance On 10 Nov 97, AFPC/DPAIPl requested the applicant furnish copies of TDY orders, Travel Vouchers, etc., in order to substantiate his claim. In response, the applicant submitted a photograph and a letter from an individual, dated 28 Nov...
1 4 AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE MATTER OF: DEC @ 8 1998 DOCKET NUMBER: 97-03195 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No PPLICANT REOUESTS THAT: The Application for Shipment and/or Storage of Personal Property, DD Form 1299, dated 12 June 1996, be amended in Block 10, Destination Information, to reflect "Denver, Colorado,,, rather than, "Colorado Springs , Colorado. PPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The reasons the applicant believes the records to be in...
The Letter of Reprimand (LOR), dated 23 July 1997, be declared void and removed from his records. 'ILove, John K!I1 or anything similar, until after this healing blessing. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C , The Staff Judge Advocate, AFPC/JA reviewed this application and states that although the applicant's conduct towards Captain B--- may have been well intentioned, it was nonetheless \\unduly familiarrr and unprofessional.
At the time applicant's record was considered for promotion to the grade of major by the CY97 board, his Officer Selection Record TOSR) did not include the citations for the decorations listed above, and his overseas duty history did not reflect his assignment in West Berlin. The Air Force states that even though the contested decoration citations were not on file in the OSR when the board convened, they board members knew of their existence as evidenced by both the entries on the Officer...
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.
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE MATTER OF: Nup 1 6 79913 DOCKET NUMBER: 9 7 - 0 3 2 3 0 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected by restoring 27 days of leave. The course graduation date was 28 March 1997 and his report not later than date (RNLTD) to his new duty station, was 30 April 1997. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 22 Dec 97. d&L/kdu/y VAU HN E. SCHLUN Panel Chair 3 DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR...
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS JUL 2 4 IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO: 97-03239 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No Applicant requests her entry level separation be changed to an honorable discharge. 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 careful consideration of...
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). A medical evaluation, diet counseling(s), 90-day exercise program, and monthly checks are provided as rehabilitative support for individuals who exceed weight and body fat standards. The Interim Message Change (IMC) 93-1, to AFR 35-1 1, 5 Feb 91, was not effective until 30 Jun 93.
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C ) . 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. Available Master Personnel Records C. Advisory Opinion D. AFBCMR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinion DEPARTMENT O F THE AIR FORCE A I R FORCE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY...
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON, DC Office of the Assistant Secretary AFBCMR 97-0325 1 JAN 2 8 1998 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code, 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: records of the Department of the Air Force relating to considered for...
Therefore, the Board is within its authority to look at the substance of his request, and, if appropriate, take whatever action it deems necessary to place him into the RTDP. In view of this, and since through no fault of the applicant, he was denied an opportunity to have his appeal of the convening authority action considered by the Air Force Clemency and Parole Board, the applicant’s request for entry in the RTDP was forwarded to the Return to Duty Screening Board (RTDSB) . The RTDSB...
The appropriate Air Force off ices evaluated applicant I s request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinions were forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). Applicant's responses to the advisory opinions are 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). The applicant’s request was not timely submitted within the three- year limitation provided by 10 U.S.C. NPRC reconstructed the applicant’s military personnel records to the best of its ability and found no record of an upgrade of discharge.
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinions were forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). The facts and opinions stated in the advisory opinion appear to be based on the evidence of record and have not been rebutted by applicant.
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO: 97-03274 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: NO A m 1 4 1998 Applicant requests he be retroactively promoted to the grade of staff sergeant. The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). A review of the applicant's case file reflects that he was tentatively selected for 1 promotion...
Therefore, we recommend his corrected record be considered by Special Selection Board for the CY94A board THE BOARD RECOMM ENDS THA T: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that: a. It is further recommended that his corrected record, to include an Officer Selection Brief reflecting the first entry under Assignment History as DAFSC "5153", CMD LVL \\W/B", and Organization "Airlift Wing", be considered for promotion to...