They now agree with the applicant and do not believe the CY97C central board had the opportunity to review the AAM, 2OLC, citation; however, the citation was not required to be filed until after the board convened on 21 June 1997. Applicant originally contended that the Aerial Achievement Medal, First Oak Leaf Cluster (AAM, 1OLC) awarded on June 25, 1997, was received too late to have the award included in his records for the CY97C Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board. As an aside,...
At the time of his lengthy hospitalization, an examination reportedly showed an enlarged prostate gland and the diagnosis of prostatitis was made. Applicant’s request, therefore, to change his retirement medical history SF 89 cannot be favorably considered and the application should be denied. We also note that during the applicant’s hospitalization from Oct 46 to Feb 47, he was diagnosed with “chronic prostatitis, cause undetermined, moderate, nonvenereal” and a single medical...
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 counsel for review and response (Exhibit D). Counsel’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.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-02039 (Case 3) INDEX CODE: 111.05, 131.00 COUNSEL: USAF JUDICIARY ADC HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Officer Performance Report (OPR), rendered for the period 6 March 1995 through 5 March 1996, be declared void and removed from his records and he be considered for promotion to the Reserve grade...
Her request for senior rater endorsement on the EPR should not be granted at this time. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and provides the wing commander’s concurrence of her request for senior rater indorsement. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice to warrant amending the MSM citation to include...
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.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-02050 INDEX CODE: 131.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Promotion Sequence Number (PSN) to senior master sergeant (E-8) be reinstated. The Board Majority believes that, because of the chain of command confusion, the applicant was unjustly charged with being AWOL, which resulted...
The BCMR Consultant concludes that the DD Form 214 should include a statement and be corrected to show: “Member was not provided all appropriate dental services within 90 days of separation.” Block 15 should be changed to “No.” A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. The BCMR Medical Consultant stated that the applicant’s record should include a statement and 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 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 advisory opinions were forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). Accordingly, her records correctly showed her military training status.
_________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Upon being asked to comment on applicant’s request that his ACP agreement be effective as of November 1997, HQ AFPC/DPAR states, in part, that current Air Force policy does not allow pilots to get ADSC “credit” for variable length ACP agreements. He has applied Air Force policy guidance consistently to all pilots with incorrect UPT ADSCs who have requested to be eligible for ACP based on the...
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). Accordingly, applicant's request is denied.
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Special Activities, AFPC/DPPAES, also reviewed this application and indicated that an error was identified regarding applicant’s RE code when he submitted a request for correction of his military records and requested AFPC/DPPRR correct his DD Form 214, Block 10, to reflect an RE code of 2C. It appears that his RE code is now correct based on the facts that existed at the time of his discharge. ...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-02078 INDEX CODE: 135.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He receive payment for inactive duty training (IDT) performed at Offutt AFB, NE on 1 July 1998. The Reserve Pay office at Hill AFB Utah sent the applicant a letter, on 9 September 1998, notifying him that his request for pay for the...
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Appeals and SSB Branch, Directorate of Personnel Program Management, HQ AFPC/DPPPA, reviewed the application and states that the CY96A major board evaluated applicant's entire officer selection record (OSR) that outlines his accomplishments since the date he came on active duty. His most recent duty title entry was missing from his OSB, they note the duty title "Wing Exercise/Deployment Officert1 is present...
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Appeals and SSB Branch, Directorate of Personnel Program Management, HQ AFPC/DPPPA, reviewed the application and states that the CY96A major board evaluated applicant’s entire officer selection record (OSR) that outlines his accomplishments since the date he came on active duty. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit...
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.
Reviews by senior Air Force officers after the recent colonels’ board made it apparent that the style of the contested OPRs was in fact detrimental to her record. As such, if their Air Force advisor had reviewed the applicant’s OPRs closing out 6 December 1994 and 21 May 1995, changes would have been recommended. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...
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.
Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. A complete copy of the DPPPAB evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant indicated that he is providing all the applicable documents concerning his request to have the contested report corrected. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department 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). While on a tour, he stopped the bus for the members to see a herd of camels. This office is responsible for determining Air Force members’ eligibility and entitlement to awards and decorations, and your case was sent to us for review.
AFBCMR 98-02094 MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION BEFORE THE AFBCMR SUBJECT: APPLICANT Having carefully reviewed this application, we agree with the recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility 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, under the authority delegated in AFI 36-2603, the applicant's records will be corrected as set forth in the...
The letter advised the applicant, “provided she remain eligible, she would be considered for promotion by the next scheduled Major Board which will consist of entirely different members. If you are nonselected for promotion by the next board and will be retirement eligible on the mandatory separation date for that board (normally the last day of the sixth month after the board report is approved), you must retire on the first day of the seventh month after the board report is approved.” On...
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 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.
A copy of applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit A. According to the Content and Index of Exhibits of the investigative report, the applicant appears to have all of the Exhibits except the Report of Autopsy and photographs. A copy of the complete Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Counsel asserts that neither the Air Force nor Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA)...
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.
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: By Article 15 action on 26 November 1997, the applicant was given a suspended reduction from staff sergeant to senior airman for committing adultery between, on or about 27 October 1996 and 5 January 1997. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Military Personnel Management Specialist, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, advised that applicant’s commander denied his request...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Enlisted Promotion Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, stated that the first time the contested report was considered in the promotion process was Cycle 97E6 to technical sergeant (E-6), promotions effective Aug 97 - Jul 98. It is noted that the applicant will become a selectee for promotion during this cycle if the Board grants his request, pending a favorable data verification check and the recommendation of...
Applicant alleges that records of the wrongful actions supporting the 1994 revocation, and reiterations of the records, still exist. After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record, to include the findings of the Air Force Personnel Board, we are persuaded that applicant’s security clearance should be reinstated; that all documentation regarding any and all unfavorable actions taken against him regarding the revocation of his security clearance be removed from his records; he be returned...
There is no evidence the applicant took any action to correct the error in his flying status. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show his flying status on the P0597B Officer Selection Brief as “active.” It is further recommended that he be considered for promotion to the grade of colonel by a Special Selection Board for the...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-02121 INDEX CODE: 135.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to reflect one (1) additional point to cover a “manday” for the time he spent at the USAF Academy Hospital, taking an Air Force Reserve mandated Cardiolite test. Accordingly, a majority of the Board recommends...
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.
Making his son his SBP beneficiary negates his state care eligibility because he would be getting a regular monthly income which exceeds their limitations. However, in view of the fact that applicant’s incapacitated son’s medical care will be stopped if his son receives SBP premiums, we believe that it would be unjust to deny the relief requested. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department 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). 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 two board certification documents, and masters degree document be placed in his officer selection record (OSR). However, the citations were not placed in his OSR. Even though all the AFAM citations were not on file for the board, they were in evidence before the board on the OSB.
A complete copy of this evaluation is appended at Exhibit C. The Enlisted Promotion & Military Testing Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, stated promotion ineligibility, because of weight, is the same as all other ineligibility conditions outlined in AFI 36-2502. DPPPWB stated the applicant tested 21 Feb 97 for promotion cycle 97E7 to master sergeant (promotions effective Aug 97 - Jul 98) and the PECD for this cycle was 31 Dec 96. Pursuant to the Board’s request, DPPPWB provided an unofficial copy...
However, if the Board voids the Article 15 as requested or removes the reduction as part of the punishment, the effective date and date of rank would revert to the original date of 1 July 1992. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 21 December 1998, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant for review and response within 30 days. ...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-02133 INDEX CODE 107.00 131.09 COUNSEL: No HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The DECOR-6, Request for Decoration Printout (RDP), and the Special Order GB-192 for the Air Force Achievement Medal Second Oak Leaf Cluster (AFAM 2OLC), 14 May 1997 - 12 August 1997, be changed to reflect a date of 31 December 1997,...
The commander recommended that the applicant receive an honorable discharge. A copy of the AFDRB brief is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The AFDRB Brief was forwarded to the applicant and his counsel on 6 August and 23 September 1998 for review and response within 30 days. PATRICIA J. ZARODKIEWICZ Panel Chair AFBCMR 98-02137 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered...
According to the Medical Consultant, the current Air Force instruction regulating separations for mental health problems does not allow flexibility for coding for other than “Personality Disorder,” an entirely different code sequence than that with which the applicant was diagnosed. A complete copy of the Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit C. The Separations Branch, AFPC/DPPRS, reviewed this application and indicated that they concurred with the Medical...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-02148 INDEX NUMBER: 131.04 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His date of rank and effective date of promotion to the grade of senior airman (SrA) be changed from 11 May 1998 to 28 February 1998. DPPPWB stated the basic eligibility criteria for promotion to senior airman (SrA) is not be...
In support of her appeal, the applicant provided a personal statement, an Inspector General (IG) Summary Report of Investigation, copies of the contested report and performance feedback worksheets, and other documents associated with the matter under review. The applicant did not provide any information/support from the rating chain on the contested EPR. A complete copy of the DPPPAB evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-02153 INDEX CODE: 131.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: Not Indicated _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be considered for promotion to the Reserve grade of major by Special Selection Board (SSB) for the Fiscal Year 1999 (FY99) Air Force Reserve Major Position Vacancy (PV) Selection Board. ...
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON, DC SEP I6 1998 Office of the Assistant Secretary AFBCMR 98-02155 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: The pertinen Force relating to show that 11.5 da commencing 1 Octo ent of...
The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied applicant’s request on 17 July 1998. 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.
The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied applicant I s request on 17 July 1998 (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.
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.
By letter dated 8 June 1998, the applicant was advised that she was disenrolled from AWC based on an examination failure. Following an explanation of the scoring process, AWC/NS stated the applicant’s academic record (which they have provided) shows that on her Volume 3 examination scores, the applicant was given test number 66 and scored a 41 on the first exam. If a student fails an examination, the original failing score remains in the student’s academic record until the retest score is...
She believes that the Board’s acceptance of the AWC’s compromise constitutes another injustice in that she is having to take a new course, albeit only one volume, despite a failure on the part of the AWC. The applicant’s submission and a supportive statement by a major air command Director of Personnel are at Exhibit H. ___________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: After reviewing the applicant’s most recent submission and the...
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON, DC AUG 11 1998 Office of the Assistant Secretary AFBCMR 98-02172 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: The pertinen Force relating to show that on 15 April 1998, he was...