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: 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. A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, Enlisted Promotion & Mil Testing Br, AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed this application and states that the spouse of the deceased member has...
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 military personnel records are not available. Therefore, we have no records upon which to determine whether or not applicant’s separation was appropriate. The Board staff is directed to inform applicant of this decision.
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). 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 is no indication in his records, and he did not provide any documentation, showing he was recommended for the DFC or an oak leaf cluster to his AM. The operative word in [the former group commander’s] statement that the Chief apparently overlooked is “Before” [emphasis applicant’s]. Therefore, the criteria for that command was not completion of a specified number of missions (35) before being recommended for the DFC and completing a tour.
DPPPAB stated that the applicant has failed to provide any information/support from the rating chain on the contested EPR. Air Force policy states that only 120 days of supervision are required before accomplishing an EPR; and 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. He did provide evidence with his application that the performance feedback statement is false.
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/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.
In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a personal statement, copies of several of his EPRs, a statement from the rater and indorser of the contested report, and other documentation relating to his appeal. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, BCMR & SSB Section, AFPC/DPPPAB, also reviewed this application and indicated that the applicant was involved in an off- duty domestic incident during the time the contested EPR was being finalized. ...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-02531 INDEX CODE: 100, 100.03 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The narrative reason for her separation on her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge From Active Duty) be changed from Miscellaneous/General Reasons to financial hardship and that her reenlistment eligibility (RE) code 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). 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.
The appropriate Air Force offices 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: 98-02537 INDEX CODE 112.01 COUNSEL: No HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His home of record (HOR) be changed from El Segundo, CA, to Austin, TX. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Skills Management Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPAE, reviewed the case and...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-02541 INDEX CODE 106.00 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: Yes _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His 1960 Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD) be upgraded to honorable or, in the alternative, his first (honorable) enlistment be separated from his second enlistment so he can receive medical benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs...
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). 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's request to have his discharge upgraded to general on 19 March 1980 (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). 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...
a, second sentence: “I will enter graduate professional education, as selected and directed by the Air Force, immediately following graduation from medical school.”) The recruiter, who was in his first year as a Health Professions Scholarships Program (HPSP) recruiter, was unable to answer whether [the applicant] would have a free selection of a specialty option without influence by the Air Force. A copy of the complete Air Force evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit...
The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied applicant's request on 26 March 1999 (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 Air Force Correction Board of Military Records (AFBCMR) denied applicant’s request for an upgrade of discharge on 25 March 1965. 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).
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-02562 INDEX CODE: 131.01 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: She be considered by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for the Calendar Year 1997D (CY97D) (5 Nov 97) Central Major Board with inclusion of the Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period 24 Nov 96 through 30 Jun 97 in her...
f the Department of the Air Force relating t corrected to show that: , Headquarters ARPC, Denver, Colorado, dated 20 April Reserve position and assigning him to the Inactive b. II c d. His record, as corrected, be considered for promotion to the grade of colonel, Air Force Reserve, by a Special Review Board (SRB); and, his records be evaluated in comparison with the records of officers who were and were not selected by the Fiscal Year 1995 (FY95) Reserve of the Air Force Colonel Selection...
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 responses to the advisory opinions are 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. Available Master Personnel Records C. Advisory Opinions D. AFBCMR Ltr Forwarding Advisory...
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 and 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.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-02575 INDEX CODE: 137 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING: NO The applicant requests that he be allowed to establish Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) coverage. 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).
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. One could also conclude, the “4” he received on the contested EPR may have motivated him to improve his duty performance for the subsequent reporting period. While it is true that EPRs are an important factor used in determining promotion potential under the Weighted Airmen’s Promotion System (WAPS), the contested report is not unjust,...
On 17 Feb 98, the Recognition Programs Branch, AFPC/DPPPRA, forwarded a letter to the applicant which responded to the applicant’s 15 Sep 94 application for correction of military records in which he requested his Report of Separation be corrected to reflect wounds received in action and his awards and decorations. He was not awarded the Silver Star Medal. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant again provided...
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.
DE~ARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON, DC Office of the Assistant Secretary AFBCMR 98-02590 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: J1 ords of the Department of the Air Force relating to- , be corrected to show that he...
They recommend disapproval of the applicant’s request for correction of his Report of Separation to reflect award of the Good Conduct Medal, American Campaign Medal, and Asiatic-Pacific Campaign Medal. After reviewing applicant’s overall record, we believe that he should be awarded the Good Conduct Medal at the time of his separation. In view of the fact that the applicant was honorably discharged, and in recognition of the short period of time involved (17 days), we believe that he should...
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.
c. He was honorably discharged on 2 March 1998 and on 3 March 1998, he reenlisted in the Regular Air Force for a period of six years with entitlement to a Zone B, multiple 2 Selective Reenlistment Bonus, payable for five years and four months. Attachment: Ltr, AFPC/DPPAE, dtd 22 Oct 98 DEPARTMENT OF T H E AIR FORCE H E A D Q U A R T E R S AIR F O R C E P E R S O N N E L C E N T E R R A N D O L P H A I R F O R C E B A S E T E X A S 2 2 OC'1" lQ98 MEMORANDUM FOR THE AFBCMR FROM: HQ...
She enlisted on 11 Jun 98 and the college transcript is dated after the fact. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 14 Dec 98 for review and response. WAYNE R. GRACIE Panel Chair INDEX CODE: 131.05 AFBCMR 98-02595 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered 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.
They subsequently reviewed and upheld the previous boards’ findings and recommendations and directed the applicant’s discharge with severance pay and a disability rating of 10 percent for physical disability. The applicant was found unfit for continued military service and was rated based on her condition at the time of her disability evaluation. Whereas the Air Force rates a member’s disability at the time of separation.
On 16 Apr 98, he was honorably discharged in the grade of airman (E-2) under the provisions of AFI 36-3208 (unsatisfactory performance), with a separation code of “JHJ”. A copy of the AFDRB Hearing Record is appended at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Education and Training Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPAT, stated that after reviewing the applicant’s request, reconsideration of his separation code should be approved. RICHARD A....
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 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.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-02605 INDEX CODE: 121.03 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be credited with nine (9) days leave he was charged from 31 July through 8 August 1998. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The relevant facts pertaining to this application,...
A complete copy of the FBI Report is attached at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Associate Chief, Military Justice Division, AFLSA/JAJM, reviewed the application and states that the applicant’s contention that he was the victim of alcoholism does not support relief. They state finally, the applicant asks the Board to believe he was sold out by his defense counsel by means of his guilty plea. We also find insufficient...
Upon entering active duty, the applicant’s date of rank was established in accordance with AFI 36-2604, Service Dates and Dates of Rank, para 7.5.1. In this regard, the Air Force states that had the applicant entered active duty from civilian status some of her professional experience would have been used in computing her date of rank. The Board is of the opinion that the applicant’s date of rank was computed in accordance with existing regulations.
He incurred a two-year ADSC which expires on 23 January 1999. Another source available to applicant at the time was the HQ AFPC/DPPAW message, dated 25 January 1996, titled, “Voluntary Extended Active Duty (EAD)/Recall for Navigators and Electronic Warfare Officers (Atch 7). In that information sheet, it also clearly stated in paragraph 1.e., “Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC): Each officer accepting EAD will receive an initial ADSC of two years.
AFI 36-2403, section 1.1.7.5, states, “Provide scheduled, requested or as needed feedback to help ratees improve their performance.” AFI 36-2403, section 2.8.2.1.3, Raters responsibilities, 1. As of this date, no response has been received by this office. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 24 Sep 98.
The Discharge Board recommended that applicant be separated from the Air Force with a general discharge with P&R. Therefore, they recommend that applicant’s request to be reinstated, reenlisted, be provided supplemental promotion consideration, and that his last EPR be removed from his records be denied as unsupported by the records before the Board. Nowhere in its advisory opinion does HQ AFPC/JA provide any authority for its opinion.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-02617 INDEX CODE: 131.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He receive Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel for the Calendar Year (CY) 1998B Lieutenant Colonel Board with inclusion of the citation for the Meritorious Service Medal (MSM)...
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request in regard to payment of 17 days of lump sum leave 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...
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, the majority of the Board finds insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant corrective action. Very few people have a first term enlistment of five years, six years or eight years or even for four years and one day.
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion 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). 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.
On 21 November 1955, applicant’s commander recommended he be discharged from the Air Force. They state that the lost time is properly recorded in his military records and on his DD Form 214 which reflected only three years, eight months, and six days of creditable service at the time of his discharge. Applicant, in response to the Board’s request, provided post-service documentation which is attached at Exhibit H. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD...
To be awarded the Purple Heart, a member must provide documentation to support he was wounded as a direct result of enemy action and must have received medical treatment by medical personnel. HQ AFPC/DPPPRA states that the medical documentation and eye witness testimony supports the applicant’s entitlement to the award of the Purple Heart for injuries sustained on 22 September 1944. PATRICIA J. ZARODKIEWICZ Panel Chair INDEX CODE: 107 AFBCMR 98-02634 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF...