The applicant appealed the contested report under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, and the appeal was considered and denied by the Evaluation Report Appeal Board (ERAB). A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachment, is attached at Exhibit C. 97-02238 The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, Airman Promotion Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, also reviewed this application and states that should the Board void the contested report, and providing...
Air Force Review Boards Agency AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 97-03509 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Six (6) days of leave lost at FY97 year-end balancing be restored. The Board majority therefore recommends that the applicant's records be corrected to show that six (6) days of leave were restored to her current leave account. The following members of the Board considered this...
However, they do not, in our opinion, support a finding that the evaluators were unable to 3 ' 97-03510 render unbiased evaluations of the applicant's performance or that the ratings on the contested report were based on factors other than applicant's duty performance during the contested rating period. Applicant contends the contested report is an inaccurate account of his performance during the reporting period because the rater did not gather input from other sources pertaining to the...
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 the evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPWB, also reviewed this application and states that should the Board void the contested report in its entirety, upgrade the...
Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A. I * STATEMENT OF FACTS: The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant's military records, are contained in the brief prepared by the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) (Exhibit B) and the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force. Notwithstanding the above determination, the Board notes that the BCMR Medical Consultant recommends changing the discharge to honorable by...
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS JUL 1 4 IN THE MATTER OF: rn COUNSEL: NONE DOCKET NUMBER: 97-03526 HEARING DESIRED: NO Applicant requests that the Officer Selection Brief reviewed by the Calendar Year (CY) 1997C (16 June 1997) Major Promotion Board be amended under the Assignment History section to reflect Duty Air Force Specialty Code (DAFSC) 36P4 versus 3384 on the 15 May 1996 entry, and that she be considered for promotion by Special Selection...
The appropriate Air Force offlce 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 f o r review and response (Exhibit D1. Applicant's response to the advisory opinion is at Exhibit E. After careful consideratior of applicant's request and the s-vzilab>e evidence ~5 z - e c c ~ c , ;hie 51nd insufficient evidence .=f efi-rax- 311 irilustice tc warranr-...
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 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 3UN 3 0 Office of the Assistant Secretary AFBCMR 97-03541 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code and Air Force Instruction 36-2603, and having assured compliance with the provisions of the above regulation, the decision of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records is announced, and it is directed that: records of ment of the Air The pertinent Force relating to show that...
We note that applicant's records have now been corrected to reflect his correct duty Air Force Specialty Code (DAFSC), and duty titles during the contested time period; therefore, the only issue for this Board to decide is promotion consideration by a Special Selection Board (SSB). Therefore, we recommend his corrected record be considered by Special Selection Board for the CY97C board. There is no evidence any steps were taken to make a correction to the DAFSC or duty title from the...
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 applicant's request and the available evidence of record, we find insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant corrective action. The commander indicated his action was being recommended because of applicant's failure to make...
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 to inform applicant of this decision.
The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied applicant's request on 18 N o v 97. The decision of the AFDRB was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). (Change Discharge to Honorable) My undesirable discharge was inequitable because it was based on one ISSUE 1: isolated incident in 24 months of service with no other severe adverse actions.
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief Medical Consultant, AFBCMR, reviewed this application and states that 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 AFI 36-3212. This, obviously, did not apply to the applicant, as he had been found fit to return to...
As a result, we recommend denial of the 8.. OGAN,C t,USAF Chief, Skills c \ DEPARTMENT O F THE AIR FORCE HEADQUARTERS AIR FORCE PERSONNEL CENTER R A N D O L P H AIR FORCE B A S E TEXAS MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR FROM HQ AFPC/JA (Maj Reed) 550 C Street West Ste 44 Randolph AFB TX 78 150-4746 SUBJECT: Application for Correction of Military Records - c 30 January 1998 - REOUESTED ACTION: ADDlicantmxmests that her home of record OKOR) be changed fro BASIS FOR REQUEST: Applicant believes that it is an...
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Recognition Programs Branch, AFPC/DPPPRA, reviewed this application and states that on 18 December 1997, the applicant was requested to provide documentation verifying his presence in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos or Thailand during the Vietnam era, his eligibility for the Small Arms Expert Marksmanship Ribbon and a bronze service star, and his presence in the Persian Gulf in direct support of Operation Desert Shield/Storm; however, he did not respond to their request. A...
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Acting Chief, Appeals and SSB Branch, AFPC/DPPPA, reviewed the application and states that the OPB is sent to each eligible officer several months prior to a selection board. The letter forwarding each eligible officer their OPB specifically outlines each entry on the OPB and OSB and the appropriate offices of responsibility to contact to have this information corrected. They are not convinced these discrepancies...
The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant's military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force. Although the applicant has been unable to provide documentation to indicate the inclusive dates he was in Saudi Arabia, we believe he has provided sufficient evidence 'to indicate that he In this respect, we note the should be awarded the S A S M . THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ Panel Chair DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR...
Applicant's performance reports rendered since 1992 reflect the following: PERIOD ENDING OVERALL EVALUATION 31 Dec 92 14 Nov 93 16 Nov 94 16 Nov 95 20 Dec 96 20 Dec 97 * Contested Report * 4 5 5 5 3 5 AIR FORCE EVALUATION : The Chief Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, Enlisted Promotion Branch, AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed this application and indicated that should the Board set the Article 15 aside and restore the applicant's grade to Senior Airman and remove the referral EPR as she requests, she would be...
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's counsel for review and response (Exhibit D). Accordingly, applicant's request is denied.
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided 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. He had minimal problems during BMT because he related that he did not have to participate in much physical conditioning because of other duties, and was able to...
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY REC J@h 2 1998 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 97-03573 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO - APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Officer Performance Report (OPR) which closed out 15 Jun 97, be included for consideration on the CY97C Lt Col selection board through the Special Selection Board (SSB). To justly select officers for promotion, the Central Selection Board should consider/review the officer's entire record. A complete copy...
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 member‘s wife elected spouse and child coverage based on full retired pay effective I Feb 98. However, if the Boards decision is to grant relief, the member's record should be corrected to show on 31 Jan 94 he elected spouse and child SBP coverage based on full retired pay.
If the additional rater now believes the comments he made are invalid, then why didn’t he provide a statement in support of the applicant’s appeal? The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In his response, applicant restated his contentions concerning his accomplishments and the critical oversight on the part of the evaluators on the contested report. ...
If his request is approved, he also 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. ___________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: After careful consideration of the additional statement provided by the rater on the contested report, we are not convinced that the report is an inaccurate assessment of the applicant’s duty...
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed this application and indicated that basic eligibility requirements for promotion to senior airman are a minimum of 36 months' total active federal military service (TAFMS) and 20 months' time-in- grade (TIG) as an airman first class (both requirements must be met) or 28 months' TIG whichever is satrsfied first, not be ineligible for any of the reasons outlined in AFI 36-2502, Table 1.1, or Headquarters...
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). DISCUSSION: Upon receiving the applicant’s DD Form 149, Application for Correction of Military Record, it was determined that additional information was needed to sufficiently evaluate member’s claim and make an appropriate recommendation.
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 Hq AFPC/DPPP NG; Release Message instructed MPFs to remind commanders to advise those individuals identified as selectees their selection is tentative mtil the data verification process is completed and the member’s Score Notice is received. More specifically, if a member is selected based on erroneous information and...
D.C. Office of the Assistant Secretary AFBCMR 97-03 595 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code and AFI 36- 2603, and having assured compliance with the provisions of the abive regulation, the decision of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records is announced, and it is directed that: of the Air Force relating to to show that on 13 May 1996, he Benefit Plan, based on a reduced curred in his election DONNA...
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 9 4 (New System) 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 The Chief, BCMR and SSB Section, AFPC/DPPPAB, reviewed this application and states that in reference to the rater now claiming he was not the applicant's supervisor and never had been, and also that he had insufficient knowledge to render an accurate evaluation of the applicant's performance, they note, the report was signed by the rater on the closeout date, and there is no mention the dates in Sections V or VI of the report are...
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 27 January 1998, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days. In this respect, we note the statement submitted from the rater who indicates that he discussed the e-mail incident with the additional rater; that he told the additional rater that no evidence could be found that the applicant had read the e-mail; that the...
DPPPWB stated that, as evidenced by the special order awarding the applicant's AFCM, the decoration did not meet the criteria for promotion credit during the 96E7 cycle because the RDP date was 22 Aug 96--after selections were made on 25 May 96 for the 96E7 cycle. Exceptions to the above policy are only considered when the airman can support a previous submission with documentation or statements including conclusive evidence that the recommendation was officially placed in military channels...
Many evacuees who took an advance later received a waiver of one month's basic pay and did not have to repay the advance. DFAS-DE/FYCC EVALUATION: The Chief , Claims Branch, DFAS-DE/FYCC, evaluated this and confirms that the applicant was stationed at rom 10' November 1989 through 9 June 1991. was advanced $ 1991 while he was stationed a A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit B.
The Air Force has indicated that although a copy of the MSM citation was not in his Officer Selection Record (OSR), the decoration was listed on the Officer Selection Brief (OSB) assessed by the Board; therefore, the board members were aware of the award. The Air Force also indicated that central boards evaluate the entire officer record and it is highly unlikely the missing MSM citation from applicant's OSR was the cause of his nonselection. Applicant requests special selection board...
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) . 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.
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 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). If the decision is to award the applicant the Humanitarian Service Medal, his record should be corrected to reflect this award.
Prior to 1989, when LOEs were attached to performance reports and filed in the record, the "from" date of the report was still determined by the close out date of the preceding report. A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit E. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the advisory opinions and states that the time that lapsed between the EPR and the validation of the IG Report was more than 35 days. BASIS FOR REQUEST: Applicant bases this...
- Facts: The member and former spouse were married on 25 Sep 58 and the member elected spouse and child coverage, maximum annuity, prior to his I Feb 73 retirement, The parties divorced on 3 Jun 96 and although the divorce decree required SBP coverage for his former spouse be continued, neither she nor the applicant submitted a valid election change during the required time limit. ~ Discussion: The applicant made no election change during the required time limit and there is no record he...
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.
'Panel Chair Attachment Ltr, AFPC/DPPTR, dtd 3 1 Mar 98 DEPARTMENT O F THE A I R FORCE HEADQUARTERS AIR FORCE PERSONNEL CENTER R A N D O L P H AIR FORCE BASE TEXAS MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR FROM: HQ AFPCIDPPTR 550 C Street West St0 1 I Randolph AFB TX 781 50-471 3 SUBJECT: Application for Correction of Military Records Requested Correction: The applicant is requesting corrective action to show he was not required to elect former spouse coverage under the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) when he...
His record, to include a Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) reflecting a "Definitely- Promote (DP) recommendation, be considered by a Special Selection Board (SSB) far promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel for the CY94 Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice to warrant that his record, to include the corrected Officer Performance Report (OPR), closing 4 January 1989 and...
Applicant states in his appeal that his “intention has been to separate from the Air Force’’ upon completion of his ADSC from UPT, ever, when he was selected for a follow-on September 199 assignment to :AFB, applicant was given the opportunity to state his intent by declining the assignment in writing at the time he received his initial relocation briefing. We agree with the Air Force that the applicant was made aware of the five-year C-130 IQT ADSC at the time of his relocation briefing. ...
5 ) days of leave be added to his current leave balance tment of the Air be corrected to P Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records OND H . W ~ L L E R ief Examiner i DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON, DC Office of the Assistant Secretary AFBCMR 9 7 - 0 3 6 5 7 MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION BEFORE THE AFBCMR SUBJECT: / SSAN:- - - /- Having carefully reviewed this application, we agree with the recommendation of the Air Force and a-dopt the rationale expressed as...
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON, DC 1 I J PV., Office of the Assistant Secretary AFBCMR 9 7 - 0 3 6 6 2 MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION BEFORE THE AFBCMR SUBJECT : Having carefully reviewed this application, we agree with the recommendation of the A i r Staff and adopt the rationale expressed 2s T ~ E S a s r s f o z CLZY decisaori Lhat Yhe applicant has been t h e t?f e x h e r ar, error or an inlus~ice. Therefore, under the ~,-:cz:v authority delegated in A F I 36-2603,...
The last MSM period covered over five years of duty, but he would still have over 2 years before retiring. Several months before retiring, he was told by HQ AFRES Awards and Decorations personnel there should be no problem in his being awarded a retirement LOM since he had 30 years of service after commissioning. Would the recommended retirement LOM be downgraded to a MSM?
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON, DC PCT 2 7 1998 Office of the Assistant Secretary AFBCMR 97-03670 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: epartment of the Air Force relating to corrected to show that he was promoted to ith a date of rank of 17 October 1997. v Air Force Review...
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. Applicant is stating t h a t he s o l d 20 days of leave back to the United States Air Force upon separation August 16, 1997, but was never paid for the leave nor...
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.