RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-02351 INDEX CODE 106.00 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His 1944 dishonorable discharge be upgraded to honorable. The applicant has provided no copies of his records. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 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 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.
1211(f) “Action under this section [1211] shall be taken on a fair and equitable basis, with regard being given to the probable opportunities for advancement and promotion that the member might reasonably have had if his name had not been placed on the temporary disability retired list.” Simply stated, if he were never on the TDRL, he would have probably scored well enough on the 96E7 test to be promoted in that cycle. A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit...
Consequently, he was not eligible to provide coverage on the applicant’s behalf following their divorce. 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 Force and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board...
HQ AFPC/DPPRS further states that although documentation of the C-141 counseling does not exist and applicant indicates he was never informed about the five-year ADSC, they believe it is a reasonable presumption that he was in fact aware of the ADSC which would be incurred. Applicant contends that he was verbally counseled that no ADSC would be incurred beyond 31 March 2000 for training in the C- 141; that no Air Force Form 63 or counseling to the contrary occurred; and that, after 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). 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). 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 filed an appeal under AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, requesting the level of PME be changed from “ISS” (Intermediate Service School) to “SSS” (Senior Service School) and if approved, he be given SSB consideration by the CY97E board. DPPPA is not convinced the board members zeroed in on the level of PME reflected on the OPR in question and used it as the sole cause of applicant’s nonselection. In addition, the applicant included evidence with his...
A personal conflict existed between the rater and herself which with the supporting evidence provided will show that the rating given was unjust. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, BCMR and SSB Section, AFPC/DPPPAB, reviewed this application and states that the applicant provided statements from the indorser and the reviewing commander who states that he admits if he had known the applicant was unaware she was getting a “4” on...
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. There are no legal errors requiring correction, and the applicant has failed to provide a sufficient basis for upgrading his bad conduct discharge to the...
The Air Force ordered recoupment without stating any reasons justifying recoupment under its regulations. The Air Force policy requires homosexuals to be discharged due to their sexual orientation, but permits recoupment only under certain circumstances. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 27 October 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Mr. Douglas J. Heady, Panel...
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The commander advised applicant that if his recommendation is approved, that his discharge would be described as entry level separation and that he would be ineligible for reenlistment in the Air Force. The records indicate member’s military service was reviewed and appropriate action was taken.
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 or latter performance. They state as a matter of note, the same evaluators rated the applicant on the EPR (16 December 1997) rendered after the contested report. A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 2 November...
Applicant's request for upgrade of his discharge to honorable was denied by the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) on 17 September 1973. We reviewed the evidence provided by the applicant in the form of character references and find it insufficient to warrant a recommendation that the discharge be upgraded on the basis of clemency. Exhibit C. AFDRB Hearing Record, dated 17 Sep 93.
Therefore, we recommend that her record, to include the “Definitely Promote” recommendation on the CY97C PRF, be considered for promotion to the grade of major by special selection board (SSB) for the CY97C Central Major Selection Board. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that the Promotion Recommendation, AF Form 709,...
His Officer Selection Brief (OSB) prepared for the Calendar Year 1998 (CY98B) Major Promotion Board be corrected to show a correction to his Duty Air Force Specialty Code (DAFSC) and Organization under the Assignment History block. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Acting Chief, Appeals and SSB Branch, Directorate of Personnel Program Management, HQ AFPC/DPPPA, reviewed this application and states that HQ AFPC/DPAPS1 concurred with the applicant’s...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Skills Management Branch, AFPC/DPPAE, reviewed this application and indicated that a review of applicant’s military personnel records revealed an AF Form 418 (Selective Reenlistment/Noncommissioned Officer Status Consideration), dated 25 Jul 88, denying her reenlistment. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Appeals & SSB Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPA, reviewed this case and asserts that it is necessary to hear from all of the evaluators of the referral report. A copy of the complete Air Force evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C. The Chief, Professional Military Education (PME), HQ AFPC/DPAPE, asserts that the Officer PME branch’s “objective” is to select officers for ISS and Senior Service...
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 and 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.
Counsel’s response to the advisory opinions is at Exhibit F. 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. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. Members of the Board Mr. David C. Van Gasbeck, Mr. Grover L. Dunn, and Mr. E. David Hoard considered this application 10 May 1999 in accordance with the provisions of Air Force Instruction...
The instructions specifically state that officers will not be considered by an SSB if, in exercising reasonable diligence, the officer should have discovered the error or omission in his/her records and could have taken timely corrective action. Had he been diligent in maintaining his records, the duty title would have been present on the OSB for the board’s review. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 2 Nov 98.
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.
Before this period, 15 October 1995 -14 October 1996, and after this period, he was supervised by the squadron section commander. They also state, 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 or subsequent performance. A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On...
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.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-02423 INDEX CODE: 110 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING: NO The applicant requests that his general under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to honorable. Applicant’s response to the advisory opinion is at Exhibit F. 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/counsel for review and response (Exhibit D). Applicant's/Counsel’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...
There are no provisions for pro-rating ASP/ISP for active duty Air Force physicians facing mandatory separation. Counsel submitted a response and states that although applicant was given a separation date of 30 September 1997, he was extended for medical reasons until 31 December 1997 and that during this time he performed the same duties he had been performing when he previously received both ASP and ISP payments. Applicant received a letter, dated 10 February 1997, which indicated that...
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 ) . A review of applicant's master personnel record indicates that he completed 14 years 9 months and 4 days of satisfactory service as a commissioned officer in the regular Air Force. However, he still had almost 13 years before his MSD to fulfill the requirements for a Reserve retirement at age 60. d. To be...
In addition, also on 21 Oct 97, the applicant received notice from her commander of his intent to vacate the suspended reduction in rank for allegedly willfully disobeying a lawful order by failing to perform the extra duties in a safe and prudent manner. On 3 Nov 97, the applicant was notified by her commander of his intent to discharge her based on a pattern of misconduct under AFI 36-3208, paragraph 5.50.2. Applicant received a letter of reprimand, dated 21 Oct 97, for these...
The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied applicant's request on 26 October 1998. In accordance with policy, the application was forwarded to this Board for further consideration (Exhibit C). The AFDRB brief was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D).
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). 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.
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The AFBCMR Medical Consultant indicates that the length of time since the decedent retired and the application was filed have likely contributed to the incomplete records available for review in this case. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant responded to the...
The ACM citation was not in the applicant’s OSR and was not indicated on the OSB at the time of the CY97C or CY98B boards. Consequently, the ACM would have been present on both of his OSBs for the CY97C and CY98B boards’ review. Written instructions attached to the OPB states "officers will not be considered by a special selection board, if in exercising reasonable diligence, the officer should have discovered an error or omission in his/her records and could have taken timely...
The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied applicant's request on 9 March 1950 (Exhibit B). 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 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 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 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 warranting a change in his separation code.
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 and 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: 98-02458 INDEX CODE: 128.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Air Force pay for the shipment of unaccompanied baggage (UB) to the Continental United States (CONUS). Since the applicant’s spouse could have requested shipment of 350 pounds by air under Special Order AE-160, they recommend the...
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Her spouse signed for the election package and it was never received by her. 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 Force and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. ...
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). Applicant’s response to the advisory opinion is at 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: 98-02470 INDEX CODE 128.02 COUNSEL: No HEARING DESIRED: Yes _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His permanent change of station (PCS) order be amended to reflect approval for early relocation of his dependents and authorize payment of overseas station allowances. ...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-02473 INDEX CODE: 100.06 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be reinstated to active duty or his reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed to one that would allow him to reenlist in the service. Exhibit C. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 23 Sep 98. RICHARD A. PETERSON Panel...
Based on the preponderance of evidence, and after a thorough review of the entire case file, the IPEB found that had these conditions been identified and presented to the board in the form of a special review prior to his discharge, they would have acknowledged their existence; however, they would not have considered them unfitting, ratable, or compensable under the provisions of military disability law and policy. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-02479 INDEX CODE: 110.03 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her narrative reason for separation (Personality Disorder) and reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 2C be changed so that she may be allowed to return to the military. ...
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: 98-02486 INDEX NUMBER: 137.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: That he be permitted to establish Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) coverage for his wife after the time period to do so expired. Although the applicant’s request to establish spouse coverage was not submitted during the time provided by...
To grant the relief sought would cause undue administrative burdens on the military records custodian in the correction of records that were not recorded in error. The original male name and gender on Chief ’s DD Form 214 were correct at the time the document was issued; 2. CHARLENE M. BRADLEY Panel Chair Attachment: Record of Proceedings AFBCMR 98-02489 MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR) SUBJECT: I have carefully reviewed the...
The Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF), reviewed by the Calendar Year 1991 Medical/Dental Corps (CY91 MC/DC) Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, be declared void and replaced with a reaccomplished PRF. AFPC/DPPP does not believe the short time the senior rater was assigned to Air Base had any bearing on the senior rater’s assessment of the applicant’s overall promotion potential Applicant should have received a copy of the CY91 PRF at least 30 days prior to his promotion...
The Medical Consultant is of the opinion that the applicant’s request for change of his RE code should be approved, this code being 3B as noted above or 3K (Reserved for use by Headquarters Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC) or the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR) when no other RE code applies or is appropriate). A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Procurement Programs & Procedures Manager, AFPC/DPPAE, also reviewed this...
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.