RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 95-01615 INDEX NUMBER: 128.05 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His zone A, multiple two Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB), received in conjunction with his 13 April 1995 reenlistment, be computed on four years of service, rather than three years. The enlistment contract provided by...
The Board again considered the application, with this new information, and on 1 Jul 97, a majority of the Board recommended partial relief in the form of supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of master sergeant by the Calendar Year 1995E7 (CY95E) promotion cycle (see Exhibit U). _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed the applicant’s requests and indicated that...
On 10 September 1996, the Board considered and denied his requests. Counsel’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit Q. For counsel’s information, that memo and the related documents were submitted by the applicant in his original appeal.
We find no impropriety in the characterization of decedent’s discharge. Under our broader mandate and after careful consideration of all the facts and circumstances of the applicant's case, we are persuaded that her late husband became a productive member of society. CHARLES E. BENNETT Panel Chair AFBCMR 95-01952 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...
_________________________________________________________________ The applicant has submitted a letter, dated 15 October 1997, requesting that she receive a direct promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel as if selected by the Calendar Year 1994 (CY94) Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board. Applicant’s numerous contentions concerning the statutory compliance of the central selection boards, illegal Officer Performance Report (OPR) restrictions, a tainted Promotion Recommendation...
ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 95-02742 COUNSEL: VFW HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Counsel requests consideration for a ten percent increase in the applicant’s retired pay, retroactive to his retirement date, due to the award of the Silver Star through AFBCMR action in July 1996. ...
On 29 April 1997, the Board considered and denied applicant’s request. A complete copy of the Record of Proceedings is attached at Exhibit J. Applicant alleged in letters to the Secretary of the Air Force, the Executive Director, AFBCMR, and a member of Congress that the examiner of record did not provide the Board with the attachments to his rebuttal comments.
Counsel’s complete submission is at Exhibit G. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Pursuant to the Board’s request, the BCMR Medical Consultant, reviewed the applicant’s most recent submission and recommended denial. A complete copy of the Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit H. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: While perhaps correctly noting that no...
A complete copy of the Record of Proceedings is attached at Exhibit F. In a letter, dated 7 October 1997, applicant provided additional documentation and requested reconsideration of his request. Therefore, we recommend the applicant be awarded the PH. THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that he was awarded the Purple Heart for injuries sustained during a bombing mission over Laons, France...
A letter, dated 2 Jun 98, submitted in the applicant's behalf, is at Exhibit D. The applicant's complete submission, provided through his congressman's office, is at Exhibit E. RESUME OF THE CASE: On 26 Aug 97, the Board considered and denied an application for correction of military records pertaining to the applicant, in which he requested that his UOTHC discharge be upgraded to honorable (see AFBCMR 96-00745, with Exhibits A through C). THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: In earlier findings, we...
Applicant is now requesting that he receive a direct promotion to the grade of colonel as if selected by the Calendar Year 1993A (CY93A) Central Colonel Selection Board. Applicant’s 10 October 1997 letter and complete submission, to include Evidentiary Support - Illegal Selection Boards, is attached at Exhibit I. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Operations, Selection Board Secretariat, HQ AFPC/DPPB, states that they do not...
Probably the most important evidence is the police report, which states the roads were wet and that applicant’s car hit the other vehicle prior to reaching Pierce Road intersection. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Counsel reviewed the Air Force opinions and contends that the entire thrust of this application is to show that the LOD IO did not...
If it was known that he had prostate cancer but only later that it was determined to be in the LOD, they would conclude that he was retroactively entitled to the benefit of extension on AD. The Air Force also states that in their opinion, the applicant’s eligibility for benefits based on prostate cancer commenced only on 22 August 1994, when bony metastases and prostate cancer were diagnosed, and the benefit he would have been entitled to at that time was incapacitation pay. ...
ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 96-01894 INDEX CODE 131.09 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: Yes _________________________________________________________________ RESUME OF CASE: In a application dated 27 June 1996, applicant requested that the Officer Selection Briefs (OSBs) considered by the Fiscal Year 1993 (FY93), FY94 and FY95 Reserve of the Air Force (ResAF) Colonel Overall Vacancy Selection Boards be...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9601894A.doc
ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 96-01894 INDEX CODE 131.09 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: Yes _________________________________________________________________ RESUME OF CASE: In a application dated 27 June 1996, applicant requested that the Officer Selection Briefs (OSBs) considered by the Fiscal Year 1993 (FY93), FY94 and FY95 Reserve of the Air Force (ResAF) Colonel Overall Vacancy Selection Boards be...
Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Director, Joint Personal Property Shipping Office, JPPSO-SAT/DIR, reviewed this application and recommended denial. ECAF again reviewed the case and based on claim documentation, they granted a weight credit of 493 pounds for missing and irreparably damaged items under GBL VP-154,889 and 108 pounds for items...
If his request for retroactive promotion is denied and the Board directs consideration for promotion by Special Selection Board (SSB), applicant also requests that: 4. As a result of his selection for promotion to the grade of major, the AFBCMR further recommended approval of his request to be reinstated to active duty. If applicant would be selected to lieutenant colonel by an SSB, at that time his record would be scored against “benchmark” records and he would receive school candidacy if...
The applicant submitted a statement and additional character reference statements which are attached at Exhibit F. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice warranting an upgrade of the applicant’s discharge to general. _______________________________________________________________________ _____________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS...
ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 96-02679 INDEX NUMBER: 137.04 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Applicant is the widow of the former servicemember who requests that her husband’s Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) former spouse coverage be changed to spouse coverage, naming her as the SBP beneficiary. ...
A complete copy of the JA evaluation is at Exhibit G. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant provided a detailed response to the Air Force advisory opinions, as well as additional documentary evidence for the Board’s consideration (Exhibit I). A complete copy of the JA evaluation is at Exhibit N. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE...
Applicant’s complete statement, with attachment, is at Exhibit F. ___________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Medical Consultant, BCMR, reviewed applicant’s most recent submission and opined that no change in the records is warranted and the application should be denied. From evidence presented both at removal from the TDRL and current examinations, the applicant’s physical disability clearly does not warrant a change in...
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request that his records be corrected to reflect award of the Humanitarian Medal 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). In view of the above, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we conclude that no basis exists to recommend favorable action on the applicant’s request that his RE...
He contends his nonselections for promotion should be set aside on the basis that the Central Reserve Officer Promotion Act (ROPA) Boards were conducted in violation of statute and Air Force directives. As a result of an earlier application to the AFBCMR, an SRB was directed but the applicant was not recommended for selection for promotion by that SRB. We note the applicant cites an AFBCMR case wherein the Board recommended direct promotion.
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.
INDEX CODE 131.09 AFBCMR 96-03009 MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION BEFORE THE AFBCMR SUBJECT: APPLICANT Having carefully reviewed this application, we agree with the recommendation of the Air Staff 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. Therefore, the applicant's records will be corrected as set forth in the accompanying Memorandum for the Chief of Staff. Panel...
The law changed 12 days after his discharge making the minimum service time for a medical retirement 15 years instead of 20 years (Exhibit A). The law provides early retirement for medically disqualified personnel who have more than 15 but less than 20 years of service. _________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD: A majority of the panel finds insufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommends the application be denied.
Available records reflect that the applicant received a Memorandum of Reprimand, dated 10 June 1994, from the Commander, Headquarters Texas Air National Guard. They recommend the applicant’s records be changed to show constructive participation as a Reserve Officer for the period of time following separation from the Texas Air National Guard through the Mandatory Separation Date. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are persuaded that the...
In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a detailed personal statement and other documents associated with the matter under review, including top promote materials, board member observations, and documentary evidence pertaining to illegal selection boards. Applicant's complete response and additional documentary evidence are at Exhibit G. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Pursuant to the Board's request, the Evaluation...
Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Pursuant to Board’s request, HQ AFRC/DPM, again reviewed this application recommended denial. The applicant’s Military Personnel Flight has been contacted and they indicated that he completed his 5-skill level in Apr 97 and has recently completed his PME requirements in Jul 98.
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). Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 97-00224 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of “ineligible” be changed to “eligible.” _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The reasons the applicant believes the records to be in error or...
He be reassigned to Extended Active Duty (EAD) as a statutory tour officer to complete 2 years, and 3 months of active duty for completion of 20 years for retirement. The applicant notes that the policy at the time he was renewed for a second tour was that a statutory officer would be continued for a 20-year retirement if they had excellent performance and 12 to 14 years of active duty. However, should the Board elect to provide the applicant relief, they recommend the applicant’s record...
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The reasons applicant believes he has been the victim of an error and/or an injustice are contained in his complete submission, which is at Exhibit A. 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. _________________________________________________________________ The...
_________________________________________________________________ RESUME OF CASE: On Dec 97, the Board considered and denied applicant’s request to change his DOR to Jun 94 (Exhibit E). _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Utilization, ANG/DPPU, reviewed the additional information from the applicant and indicated that after careful consideration of the additional documentation, the applicant has not provided sufficient...
_________________________________________________________________ RESUME OF CASE: On 11 Dec 97, the Board considered and denied applicant’s request to change his DOR to 9 Jun 94 (Exhibit E). _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Utilization, ANG/DPPU, reviewed the additional information from the applicant and indicated that after careful consideration of the additional documentation, the applicant has not...
On 2 June 1997, applicant submitted an application to the Army Board for Correction of Records requesting award of the ARCOM. Accordingly, the majority of the Board recommends that the records be corrected as indicated below. It is further directed that he be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by Special Selection Board beginning with the CY94A (11 October 1994) Central Lieutenant Colonel (JAG) Board and any subsequent boards to which entitled based on...
In support of the appeal, applicant submits AFRPC message, dated 15 February 1991, SG’s Special Pay bonus for Physicians letter, Request and Authorization for Active Duty Training/Active Duty Tour, Request and Authorization for Change of Administrative Orders, and Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Superintendent, Medical Special Pay Branch, AFPC/DPAMF1, reviewed the application and states that...
The applicant provided additional evidence and requested that his case be reconsidered. The applicant did not provide any documentation showing he was actually in Vietnam, on or , and in direct support of Operation FREQUENT WIND. BARBARA A. WESTGATE Panel Chair Exhibits: Exhibit E. Record of Proceedings, dated 23 Oct 97.
The applicant provided additional evidence and requested that his case be reconsidered. The applicant did not provide any documentation showing he was actually in Vietnam, on 29 or 30 Apr 75, and in direct support of Operation FREQUENT WIND. BARBARA A. WESTGATE Panel Chair Exhibits: Exhibit E. Record of Proceedings, dated 23 Oct 97.
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.
Available documentation indicates that he was appointed a second lieutenant, Air National Guard and Reserve of the Air Force on . A National Guard Bureau Office of Inspector General (NGB-IG) investigation was conducted on and concerning the following allegations (Exhibit C). He was not released from active duty on 8 Mar 96 under the provisions of AFI 36-36-3209 (Misconduct), transferred to the Kansas Air National Guard on 2 Apr 96, discharged from the Kansas Air National Guard on 31 Jul...
On , the applicant provided a statement from the reviewer of the contested report and requested the Board reconsider his application (see Exhibit G). The reviewer states that the applicant’s work on restructuring for Air Combat Command and U.S. Atlantic Command eclipse all his other accomplishments and shows a far greater impact than indicated on the contested OPR. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of...
On 6 Oct 98, the applicant provided a statement from the reviewer of the contested report and requested the Board reconsider his application (see Exhibit G). The reviewer states that the applicant’s work on restructuring for Air Combat Command and U.S. Atlantic Command eclipse all his other accomplishments and shows a far greater impact than indicated on the contested OPR. CHARLENE M. BRADLEY Panel Chair INDEX CODE: 111.01, 131.01 AFBCMR 97-00860 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having...
The complete evaluation is attached at Exhibit G. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Counsel disagreed with the recommendation provided by the evaluator at the Psychiatry Clinic and stated that she believes the applicant would do well on active duty. Therefore, the Board recommended evaluation of the applicant’s current medical condition and that the results of the evaluation be provided for the Board’s review. ...
The complete evaluation is attached at Exhibit G. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Counsel disagreed with the recommendation provided by the evaluator at the Psychiatry Clinic and stated that she believes the applicant would do well on active duty. Therefore, the Board recommended evaluation of the applicant’s current medical condition and that the results of the evaluation be provided for the Board’s review. ...
The medical record clearly shows that while the applicant may have been treated for various medical conditions while on active duty, none were serious enough to render her unfit for further military service under the provisions of disability law and policy. In this respect, we note that while the applicant may have been treated for various medical conditions while on active duty, none were serious enough at the time of her discharge to render her unfit for further military service. The...
Since there was no provision of law that permits receipt of retired pay unless this requirement has been met, the Board agreed with the Air Force evaluation and found no basis to recommend granting the relief sought. A copy of the Record of Proceedings is attached at Exhibit F. Applicant, with counsel, has submitted an application, dated , requesting reconsideration of his earlier request to grant an additional two years of Reserve service to be eligible to receive Reserve retired pay at...
Since there was no provision of law that permits receipt of retired pay unless this requirement has been met, the Board agreed with the Air Force evaluation and found no basis to recommend granting the relief sought. A copy of the Record of Proceedings is attached at Exhibit F. Applicant, with counsel, has submitted an application, dated 16 June 1998, requesting reconsideration of his earlier request to grant an additional two years of Reserve service to be eligible to receive Reserve...
On , the Board considered and denied his requests (see Exhibit I). On , counsel for the applicant provided additional documentation and requested reconsideration of applicant’s case (see Exhibit J). _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that...
On 3 Mar 98, the Board considered and denied his requests (see Exhibit I). On 7 Apr 99, counsel for the applicant provided additional documentation and requested reconsideration of applicant’s case (see Exhibit J). _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal...