A copy of the complete Air Force evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and, in a letter dated 14 April 1999, asserted the IG investigation was flawed because the rater never discussed any reported complaints during her performance feedback session five months before the IG investigation. After a thorough review of the evidence of...
Applicant's submission is at Exhibit A. Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Washington, D. C., provided a copy of an investigation report, which is attached at Exhibit C. The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit D). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit E). BENEDICT A. KAUSAL IV Panel Chair Exhibits: A.
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated the applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board. 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.
Applicant's submission is at Exhibit A. Pursuant to the Board’s request of 10 December 1998, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided a copy of an investigation report, which is attached at Exhibit C. The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit D) The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit E). On 14...
The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied the applicant’s request for upgrade of his discharge (Exhibit C). The AFDRB Brief was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). After careful consideration of applicant's request and the available evidence of record, we find insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant corrective action.
In this respect, the office of primary responsibility of the Air Force, HQ AFPC/DPSF, has indicated that there are several irregularities in the applicant’s Weight Management Program (WMP) case file as well as documentation from the medical practitioner supporting his contentions. The applicant’s request to be promoted to the grade of technical sergeant (E-6) during Cycle 96E6 through the correction board process was considered by the Board. It is further recommended that he be provided...
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 opinion were forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). The facts and opinions stated in the advisory opinions appear to be based on the evidence of record and have not been rebutted by applicant.
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). Applicant did not identif) any specific errors in the discharge processing nor provide facts which warrant an upgrade of the discharge he received. Accordingly, we recommend applicant's request be denied.
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). 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). Applicant signed the form on 22 Sep 94, indicating his acknowledgment of nonselection and his intent to appeal the decision.
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C) . After careful consideration of applicant's request and the available evidence of record, we find insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant corrective action. Available Master Personnel Records C. Advisory Opinion D. SAF/MIBR L t r Forwarding Advisory Opinion D E P A R T M E N T O F T H E A I R F O R C E HEADQUARTERS...
They state the provisions for advancement of enlisted members are quite specific and the only date he may be legally advanced at is the date on which he will have completed 30 years active service plus service on the retired list. They state that this law stated in part that a retiree may not receive less retirement pay than he would have received had he retired at any earlier time with least 20 years of service. After reviewing the evidence of record, we believe that the applicant should...
While this situation is unique, applicant was provided fair and equitable promotion consideration in accordance with existing policy and procedures and not selected. Since we have no way of knowing for sure if or when the applicant would have been promoted, to rectify any possible promotion injustice, the records should be corrected to show he was promoted to the grade of senior master sergeant and retired in that grade. The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form...
A copy of the complete Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit C. The Chief, Appeals & SSB Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPA, also reviewed the case and indicated she would not be opposed to the applicant’s receiving SSB consideration by the CY98B board with the correct citation for the AFCM 2OLC filed in his officer selection record. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-02221 XXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO Applicant requests his date of rank to the grade of staff sergeant be corrected from 25 September 1996 to 26 May 1996. 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...
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 should also be informed that this decision is final and will only be reconsidered upon the presentation of new relevant evidence which was not reasonably available at the time the application was filed.
Although SBP premiums may continue to be deducted from the member’s retired pay following divorce, the former spouse is not eligible to receive annuity payments in the event of the member’s death. There is no evidence of Air Force error, or basis in law to award the applicant an annuity; therefore, they recommend the request be denied. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air...
Exhibit B. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 14 Dec 98. Exhibit E. Letter, applicant, dated 2 Jun 99.
It is further recommended that he be considered for promotion to the grade of captain by a Special Selection Board for the CY92B Board and, if necessary, for the CY93C board and the results be forwarded to the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records at the earliest practicable date so that all necessary and appropriate actions may be completed. Mr. Long voted against voiding the referral OPR and the DNP recommendation and has provided a Minority Report at Exhibit J. MARTHA...
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.
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 should also be informed that this decision is final and will only be reconsidered upon the presentation of new relevant evidence which was not reasonably available at the time the application was filed.
He received prior authorization to perform a Do-It- Yourself (DITY) move; he received proper DITY move counseling; he completed a DD form 2278, DITY Counseling Checklist, prior to the movement of his personal property in connection with his move to St. Louis, Missouri; and, his incentive was based on the rates in effect in June 1998. There is no statutory authority for a member to move personal property at govemment expense prior to receipt of orders unless the request for transportation is...
The Medical Consultant indicated that a review of his dental records revealed the applicant was furnished a statement that he did complete all appropriate dental care and had a complete dental examination within 90 days prior to his separation. A complete copy of the Medical Consultant’s evaluation was at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant indicated that he was given a complete examination on 19...
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.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-02273 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. Applicant has provided, through his Senator’s office, documentation regarding his post service activities. We also find insufficient...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-02277 INDEX CODE: 131.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: She be considered for promotion to the Reserve grade of Colonel by Special Selection Board (SSB) for the Fiscal Year 1998 (FY98) Reserve of the Air Force Colonel Selection Board. ...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO: 98-02282 INDEX CODE 107.00 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: Yes Applicant requests he be awarded the Bronze Star Medal with the “V” (Valor) device for his actions on 1 January 1968. The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). Applicant's response to the advisory opinion is at...
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 purpose of the DD Form 2 14 is document active duty service. CONCLUSION: To assist the member in his attempt to combine his “military service time with his federal time”, we have attached a copy of the member’s last DD Form 2 14 with a copy of DAF special order ACD- 1562, dated 5 May 93, which removed him from the TDRL with a...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-02285 INDEX CODE: 131.00, 131.05 APPLICANT COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His grade be corrected from technical sergeant (E-6) to master sergeant (E-7), effective 2 September 1945. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice. ...
The 21 November 1997 order, modified on 14 January 1998, curtailing his Air National Guard (ANG) Statutory Tour Title 10 Program on 1 July 1998 be rescinded. The Report of Investigation (ROI) failed to consider (1) the advice of Brigadier General (BG) W---, then Deputy Director, ANG, and Col E---, Chaplain, concerning the applicant’s decision to marry MSgt W---; (2) the confusing AFI 36-2909 on Professional and Unprofessional Relationships; (3) the Guard’s arbitrary and capricious...
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant’s counsel reviewed the advisory opinions and states that he is enclosing a statement from the First Sergeant which supports his client’s contention. The statement from his first sergeant states that, with the Air Force in a downsizing mode, he recommended that the applicant be separated. DOUGLAS J....
On 9 September 1997, the applicant wrote to the 39th Wing IG alleging he had experienced reprisal by his squadron commander for giving a protected statement to an IG investigator during a separate IG investigation on 15 and 19 July 1997. The applicant alleged the squadron commander withheld a senior rater endorsement to [the EPR in question]. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed...
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). 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.
They further note that a PME recommendation is not a determining factor or guarantee of promotion selection by the promotion board. The selection board had his entire officer selection record that clearly outlines his accomplishments since the date he came on active duty. A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and...
We therefore recommend his records be corrected as reflected below and he be afforded supplemental promotion consideration for the grade of senior master sergeant beginning with cycle 99E8. RICHARD A. PETERSON Panel Chair AFBCMR 98-02306 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: The...
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He believes his dishonorable discharge was improper and harsh since it was during a time period of 1 year and 5 months of service with no other criminal record. Applicant pled guilty to all charges except Charge I, and all specifications except specifications 2 and 3 of Charge IV. A complete copy of the FBI Report 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 facts and opinions stated in the advisory opinion appear to be based on the evidence of record and have not been rebutted by applicant.
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). Requested 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). Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.
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.
Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Applicant’s military personnel records reflects that the applicant, a former United States Air Force Academy cadet, was ordered to extended active duty on 1 Jun 94. The applicant erroneously tested for promotion to staff sergeant for the 95E5 cycle on 8 May 95.
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 the evidence of record and have not been rebutted by applicant. The applicant alleges miscounseling by the Military Personnel Flight (MPF) regarding the option to reenlist.
The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) request on 9 March 1950 (Exhibit B). 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. Accordingly, applicant's request is denied.
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C) . Applicant should also be informed that this decision is final and will only be reconsidered upon the presentation of new relevant evidence which was not reasonably available at the time the application was filed. The applicant is requesting his uncharacterized character of service be changed to honorable.
In support of the appeal, applicant submits a Letter of Recommendation for award of the DFC, dated 2 August 1944, his personal statement, a certificate of his combat mission and combat time, a statement from the 439th Bombardment Squadron Adjutant indicating that the Squadron Intelligence Officer recommended the applicant for the DFC. On 22 August 1944, the applicant was recommended for award of the DFC based on his actions on 19 August 1944; however, we find no evidence as to the outcome...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Enlisted Promotion and Military Testing Branch, AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed this application and indicated that should the closeout date be changed from 11 Mar 97 to 7 Oct 96, it would be eligible to be used in the promotion process for the 97E7 cycle (promotions effective Aug 97 - Jul 98). A complete copy of the DPPPAB evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit...
In his 13-year Reserve career, he completed nearly 23 years of service; however, only 18 years are being recognized for retirement. The applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 26 May 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Panel Chair Mr. Jackson A. Hauslein, Member Mr. Charles E. Bennett,...
He be released from his PALACE CHASE contract and resignation from the Air Force. In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a personal statement and other documentation Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, PALACE CHASE, HQ AFPC/DPPRSR, reviewed this application and states that applicant denies knowledge of recoupment action prior to separation; however, on 8 May 1997, he signed a...
The applicant further stated that the devil has been present and talked to him on numerous occasions inticing him to action. On 20 Jun 77, a report of evaluation by a psychiatrist indicated the applicant’s medical chart had been missing for the last two to three weeks according to the personnel record room though the psychiatrist was aware of having written at least two previous reports to applicant’s commander after various incidents in the squadron. The evaluation officer had two...