AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 97-03283 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO j-SEP 1 4 ~ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His narrative reason for separation be changed from marginal performer to family hardship. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: At the time of his request to be separated, he provided documentation indicating a family hardship existed due- to his father's illness and was told that the documents would be taken into...
If neither the member nor former spouse requests the efection change during the one-year eligibility period, former spouse coverage may not be established thereafter. Even though a member fails to notify Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) of the divorce and continues to pay SBP premiums afterwards, the former spouse is not eligible for an annuity upon the member's death. Discussion: Although the applicant made no election change during the required time limit, there is no...
- I I COUNSEL: None - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS JUL 1 7 IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO: 97-03293 HEARING DESIRED: NO - Applicant requests that the one year eligibility period for a spouse acquired after retirement be waived and she be granted a Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) annuity. 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...
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE MATTER OF: JUW6 1398 : COUNSEL : None DOCKET NUMBER: 97- 03298 HEARING DESIRED: No -- APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Officer Selection Brief (OSB) reviewed by the Calendar Year Major Selection Board be corrected and he be given 1 9 9 7 consideration for promotion by Special Selection Board (SSB). A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Appeals and SSB Branch, AFPC/DPPPA, reviewed the...
After the first Article 15 was imposed, the commander initiated separation proceedings. The finding of the discharge board is not evidence in and of itself. A complete copy of this evaluation is appended at Exhibit C. The Enlisted Promotion and Military Testing Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, stated that the first time the EPR closing 19 April 1996 would have been considered in the promotion process was cycle 96E6 to technical sergeant (E-6) (promotions effective August 1996 - July 1997).
&&e Director v Air Force Review Boards Agency I RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS NOv2 3 7998 IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 9 7 - 0 3 3 2 1 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: She receive a waiver of her government property lost or damaged (GPLD) indebtedness of $ 2 8 6 . While we note that applicant's request for a waiver of indebtedness does not constitute an erroneous payment of pay and allowances, we believe a remission...
The omission of the formal advanced training and the incorrect number of days of supervision, acknowledged by his rating chain and other witnesses, indicate that the contested OPR was not a complete assessment of his accomplishments during the contested rating period, nor a complete record of his preparation, training, and potential for advancement. Air Force regulations required that his 4-month long training course be documented in his OPR rather than in a training report. Exhibit E....
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the The advisory opinion was application be denied (Exhibit C ) . Facts: After thorough review of the individuals records, we did not find any documentation certifying eligibility for this badge to be awarded. Recommendation: After reviewing the members records, we do not recommend the SP badge be put on the DD Form 214.
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinions 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. Conclusion and Recommendation, Applicant did not idat.$ any specific errors in the discharge processing nor provide facts which warrant a change in the reason...
-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 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. , 1 .\...,....... DEPARTMENT O F THE AIR FORCE HEAWUARTER$ AIR M R C E PERSONNEL CENTER RANDOLPH AIR...
Although the applicant has been unable to provide copies of TDY orders or travel vouchers in support of his request, an AF Form 7 contained in his records reflects that he performed 58 days TDY in SEA. Applicant requests award of the Vietnam Service Medal, Air Force Overseas Ribbon, etc. -4 5: ,- We recommend disapproval of the applicant's request for award of the Vietnam Service Medal and Air Force Overseas Ribbon.
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). Available Master Personnel Records C. Advisory Opinions D. AFBCMR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinions LeROY T. BASEMAN Panel Chair DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE HEADQUARTERS AIR FORCE PERSONNEL CENTER RANDOLPH AIR FORCE BASE TEXAS DEC 0 4 I997 U.S. AIR FORCE B 1 9 4 7 - 1 9 9 7 MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR FROM: HQ AFPC/DPPRS 550 C Street West...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Enlisted Promotion Branch, AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed this application and states that should the Board void the report closing 1 March 1997 as requested, and direct the report closing 1 August 1996 be made a matter of record, providing he is otherwise eligible, the applicant will be entitled to supplemental promotion consideration beginning with cycle 97E7. Based on the documentation submitted, it...
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON, D. C. JUN 3 0 Office of the Assistant Secretary AFBCMR 97-03346 MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION BEFORE THE AFBCMR Having carefully reviewed this application, we agree with the recommendation of the Air Force and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has been the victim of either an error or an injustice. b. PL 99-145, effective I Mar 86, authorized an open season during which participants with former...
By completing all requirements, the RE code should have reflected a code which would allow him to reenlist. A complete copy of the DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 27 Jan 98 for review and response. Therefore, his separation and RE codes accurately reflect the reason for his separation and his status vis-a-vis the alcohol rehabilitation program at the time of his separation.
On 2 November 1995, applicant was notified of her squadron section commander's intent to recommend her for a general discharge for minor disciplinary infractions, in accordance with AFI 36-3208, paragraph 5.49. The squadron section commander advised applicant of her right to consult legal counsel and submit statements in her own behalf. Copies of the letters are attached at Exhibit E. THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 1. law or regulations.
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS JUL 2 I IN THE MATTER OF: I DOCKET NUMBER: 97-03354 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214) be updated to reflect his completion of small arms training. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief , Education and Training Branch, Directorate of Personnel Programs reviewed this application and states that the applicant did not provide a copy...
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO: 97-03355 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO AUG 2 i Applicant requests that her late husband's records be corrected to reflect that he elected coverage for her under the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP). The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). c. There were no provisions in...
On 4 January 1994, the AFBCMR considered and rejected as untimely an application submitted by applicant requesting that he and six other crew members be awarded the Silver Star. (Exhibit C) 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 F. After careful consideration of applicant's request and the available 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 B). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit C). c. The statement on his DD Form 214, “Member served 17 Oct 90 to 1 Oct 93 in support of Operation Desert ShieldStom” is a generic statement and only qualifies the applicant for the National Defense Service Medal, which he received.
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECO 4 Iw$1G 2 5 1998 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 96-03370 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Air Force Form 709, Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF), rendered for the Calendar Year (CY) 1993B ( 6 December 1993) Major Selection Board be deleted and he be given consideration for promotion to the grade of major by Special Selection Board (SSB) without the promotion recommendation. In support of...
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SEP 1 4 1998 IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 97-03372 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT: He be awarded the Joint Meritorious Unit Award (JMUA). Applicant's complete response is attached at Exhibit E. 1. 97- 03372 All members voted to correct the records, as recommended.
HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by Special Selection Board (SSB) for the Calendar Year (CY) 1997C Lieutenant Colonel Board, with the Meritorious Service Medal (First Leaf Cluster) (MSM(1OLC)) for the period 16 March O a k 1993-28 February 1995, included in his Officer Selection Record (OSR) . After careful consideration of the applicant‘s complete submission, we believe some doubt exists as to whether...
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.
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). At the time she was placed on TDRL, promotion testing was being conducted for the 96E6 cycle. Although she is requesting supplemental promotion consideration to TSgt for the 97E6 cycle, she was ineligible for consideration because she was not on active duty.
DPPPA notes the 30 Sep 95 OPR was the top document on file for the CY96C board and, as the senior rater states, includes a recommendation for professional military education (PME). As a matter of interest, DPPPA notes the senior rater’s letter, dated 17 Dec 96 (see AFI 36-2401 appeal), states he “did not feel it necessary to reiterate to the promotion board (his) endorsement to SSS on his (the applicant’s) PRF.” The senior rater believed the statement, “If I had one more DP...” was his best...
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.
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The reasons the applicant believes the records to be in error o r unjust and the evidence submitted in support of the appeal are at Exhibit A. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Appeals and SSB Branch, Directorate of Personnel Program Management , HQ AFPC/DPPPA, reviewed the application and states that Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) are required to be on file no later than sixty days after the closeout of the report. THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent...
While serving on active duty, he was promoted to the grade of captain, with an effective date and date of rank of 1 July 1987. In support of his request, he has provided a letter, dated 12 September 1994, documenting his formal application for employment with the National Security Agency (NSA) prior to his date of separation of 18 November 1994. Since the HQ AFMPC/DPMAR policy letter of 30 January 1995 clearly stated that "confirmed employment or formal application pending prior to date...
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PEB 1 8 ?999 IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET "IBER: 97-03397 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO LICANT REOUESTS THAT: His record, to include an Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period 30.April 1991 through 1 May 1992, be considered for promotion to the Reserve grade of major by a Special Review Board (SRB) for the Fiscal Year 1998 (FY98) Major Selection Board. On 16 May 1992, the applicant was commissioned in...
AFPC/DPPPA asserts the applicant’s OPR was accomplished in direct accordance with Air Force policy in effect at the time the report was rendered and are strongly opposed to replacing it with a new version. A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 5 January 1998 for review and response within 30...
Advise applicant of the decision of the Board,the right to a personal appearance with counsel and the right to submit an application to the AFBCMR. ORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to Honorable. The Board concluded the misconduct described in the applicant’s record warranted the General characterization.
His corrected record receive supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of master sergeant (E-7) for cycle 97E7. He is asking the Board to correct the injustice that was done on his last duty station. Per message, dated 29 Sep 97, officials at the Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC), Promotion Management Section, AFB, , informed the applicant that the documentation provided did not clearly establish that a decoration recommendation was placed into official channels prior to the date...
He received a letter of Reprimand dated 9 November 1994. We note that when the applicant requested relief for a change in his characterization of discharge and a change of narrative reason for discharge, the AFDRB did upgrade applicant's discharge to honorable from general under honorable conditions. 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...
4 L AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECOR3 3F PROCEEDINGS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 97--03429 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING: NO The applicant requests that the award of the Vietnam Campaign Medal be added to his DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Cischarge. The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opin,on to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit T I . The advisory opinion...
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 Board staff is directed tc inform applicant of this decision.
Applicant's MSD was recomputed to delete the constructive service credit changing his MSD of 8 July 2000 to 12 March 2001. The TYSD is established from the date of graduation, 8 June 1974, and includes 3 years, 3 months, and 27 days duplicated commissioned service time, 11 February 1971 - 8 June 1974, and 8 months, 3 days constructive credit, 8 June 1970 through 10 February 1971, per AFM 36-5, Table 2-3, Rule 7, and paragraphs 2-15 and 2-16. In view of the computations, we find’ no error...
When a member fails to complete an SBP election prior to retirement, coverage is established for all eligible beneficiaries by operation of law. Title 10 USC Section 1448 (a) (3) requires that the spouse of a married member must concur in any election that provides less than full spouse SBP coverage. The statement from the member's husband concurring in her election to decline coverage is inappropriate in that he does not clearly acknowledge retired pay ceases when the member dies, that he...
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). Applicant states finance did not inform him of the method used to compute payment of accrued leave. The applicant separated from the.Air Force on May 15, 1997, and reentered active duty in the May 17, 1997.
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). A chronological record of the applicant’s service indicates the applicant has 16 years, 11 months, and 29 days satisfactory service towards a 20 year selected reserve retirement. The NGB Form 22 referred to in item 9 of the attached DD Form 149 properly reflects the period of service from 20 August 1985 - 3 December 1994, Item 10 (a).
On 19 May 1997, the applicant's commander notified him that he was considering whether he (commander) should punish the applicant under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) . That action also set aside the punishment imposed on 4 June 1997. It appears that when the applicant was acquitted of the DWI charge by the civilian court, a request was made to the commander to set aside the Article 15 action.
IN THE MATTER OF: RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS DOCKET NUMBER: 97-03473 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO I APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT: Comments be added to Sections VI (Rater Overall Assessment) and VI1 (Additional Rater Overall Assessment) on t h e Officer Performance Report (OPR) closing 1 January 1993, and that he be g i v e n consideration for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by Special Selection Board (SSB) for the Calendar Year 1997...
As to the 23 June 1997 duty history entry, the Air Force office of primary responsibility, HQ AFPC/DPPPA, stated that the applicant's letter to the P0597C board president, which explained his then current duty title, was in his Officer Selection Record (0%) when it was considered by the P0597C selection board. The applicant requests two corrections to his duty history. The applicant requests his duty history entry, effective 2 Oct 92, be updated to reflect “Chief, Commodities Section”...
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AUG 1 9 IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 97-03481 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO Applicant requests that his reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 4M be changed, and, that he be advised as to the meaning of his narrative reason for separation of "Defective Enlistment Agreement." The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's requests and provided advisory opinions to the Board (Exhibit D). The applicant is...
tment of the Air , be corrected to ge his Survivor - use coveragelf to Itformer spouse s beneficiary, based on reduced Caef E x a b r Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records DEPARTMENT O F THE A I R FORCE HEADQUARTERS AIR FORCE PERSONNEL CENTER RANDOLPH AIR FORCE BASE TEXAS MEMOWNDUM FOR AFBCMR FROM: HQ AFPC/DPPTR 550 C Street West Ste 11 Randolph AFB TX 781 50-471 3 SUBJECT: Application for Correction of Military Records Requested Correction: The applicant, son of the above-named...
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Appeals and SSB Branch, AFPC/DPPPA, reviewed the application and stated that OPRs on active duty officers are due for file at HQ AFPC no later than 60 days after closeout date. t RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD: A majority of the panel finds insufficient evidence 'of error or injustice and recommends the application be denied. Air Force Review Boards Agency DEPARTMENT OF THE A I R FORCE HEADQUARTERS AIR FORCE P E R S O N N...
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.
reviewed the application and stated that every Air Force member is responsible for ensuring their record is correct. As of this date, no response has been received in this office. The Air Force acknowledges the contested medals were not a part of applicant's record when it was considered by the CY97C selection board.
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON, DC Office of the Assistant Secretary AFBCMR 9 7 - 0 3 4 9 9 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Under the authority of Section 1 5 5 2 , Title 10, United States Code and Air Force Instruction 3 6 - 2 6 0 3 , 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: Force relating to 1 be corrected to The pertinent military...
- AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO: 97-03505 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: NO Applicant requests her rank to master sergeant, made during a 95E7 supplemental board, be reinstated. 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 facts and opinions stated in the advisory opinion appear to be based on...