He request that his DD From 214 be amended to reflect this change. The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 9 April 1997, w/atchs. VAUGHN E. SCHLUNZ Panel Chair AFBCMR 98-02635 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 pertinent military...
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Military Personnel Management Specialist, Separations Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, concurs with the AFBCMR Medical Consultant’s recommendation that the applicant’s narrative reason for separation should be changed. We do believe that the RE code 2C is the correct code assigned at the time of applicant’s separation. OSCAR A. GOLDFARB Panel Chair INDEX CODE: 110 AFBCMR 98-02636 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having...
The applicant’s appeal to her commander’s commander was denied. 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 states that she did not violate Article 92 because Technical Sergeant (TSgt) A--- did not say to stop using the phone at the post office for personal calls. She states that violation of Articles 92, 107 and 134...
Information provided by the office of primary responsibility (OPR) indicates that applicant had 54 days of leave on 1 October 1997, he used 7 days, and had 77 days on 30 September 1998. DPSFC stated applicant lost 17 days of leave because Title 10, United States Code, Section 701, precludes members from carrying over more than 60 days of leave into the next fiscal year (FY). In this case, DPSFC could not find the Air Force culpable because military necessity was not the cause for the lost leave.
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: After a review of his Officer Performance Report (OPR), for the period 2 July 1989 through 29 October 1989, he discovered an error in a statement cited in the CY96B PRF. A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Acting Chief, Promotion, Evaluation, & Recognition Division, HQ AFPC/DPPPAB, states that while the applicant contends the statement in question may have misled the...
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: AFIC/DP policies prevented an update to his personnel Report on Individual Person (RIP) reflecting the squadron commander duty title used during the CY93A Colonel Promotion Board. Regarding the applicant’s request that the information contained in the Letter of Evaluation (LOE), AF Form 77, for the period 8 January 1993 through 3 April 1993, be made available to a reconvened CY93A Colonel Promotion...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPPWB reviewed the application and states that the applicant believes he was demoted from sergeant to airman first class. However, it is evident that based on the grade structures reflected in the two regulations indicated above, that some time between the date of the two regulations the grade of Sergeant (E-4) changed to Airman First Class (E-4). ...
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: 98-02649 INDEX CODE 134.02 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: Yes _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Air Training Command (ATC) Form 126A, Record of Commander’s Review Action, dated 8 September 1993, be removed from his records and he be made eligible to apply and be selected for pilot training. In his statement, the former 557 FTS...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant, reviewed this application and states that the applicant was discharged when a disqualifying medical condition that predated his Air Force enlistment was revealed. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the advisory...
At the time of his selection for crossflow into the E-4B training and subsequent PCS to Of futt , his assignment action officer, Major "C" , noted in the assignment worksheet trailer remarks section, 'Compute ADSC IAW AFI 36-2107, T1.9, R1 for PCS and T1.5, R1 for training. However, one cannot ignore the fact that the ADSC was clearly noted on the assignment notification message and, in the absence of an AF Form 63, that message served as the source document for the officer's acknowledgment...
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.
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: 98-02669 INDEX CODE: 131.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be reviewed by the Board of Civilians, the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR), and that his records be compared with the records of the individuals that were promoted and the criteria set for...
It appears that in each instance that the applicant requested an extension for non-temporary storage (NTS) of his household goods (HHG), he was informed that the request for extension was approved; however, he was not advised there would be a cost to him commencing one year after termination of active duty. However, JPPSO/DIR states that they would support storage entitlement to 6 October 1997, the time he was informed of the debt and the applicant would be responsible for storage costs in...
The airman’s name may stay on the waiting list until 150 days before the airman’s date of separation to await a possible CJR.” _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Directorate of Personnel Program Management, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, reviewed this application and states that the Separation Program Designator (SPD) code “LBK” is used to identify airmen who completed their required active service. Members receiving SPD “LBK” are eligible to receive...
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.
While separating from the Air Force, he was told that he would only be given a paid move to his HOR and anything else was up to him. DPPRS indicated that the applicant elected to separate at Air Force Base as indicated in his application to separate under the Palace Chase program. In view of the above, we recommend that the applicant’s records be corrected as indicated below, which will provide the applicant with the proper relief.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-02680 INDEX NUMBER: 110.00; A01.43; A92.21 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES Applicant requests that his 14 September 1957 undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit B). Therefore, the request for a hearing is not...
ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-02680 INDEX NUMBER: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His 14 September 1957 undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Clarksburg, WV, provided a copy of an Investigation Report pertaining to 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). 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 applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A. In a letter, dated 19 September 1945, the Director, Supply and Services, recommended the applicant be considered for promotion to the grade of captain. On 1 October 1945, a Recommendation for Promotion of Officer (WD AGO Form 78), dated 1 October 1945, was initiated which recommended the applicant’s promotion to the grade of captain.
In support of his request, the applicant submits a personal statement and copies of his internment papers, dated 20 Jun 44, showing his grade as sergeant, Special Orders #121, dated 1 Dec 44, showing his grade at release from Sweden as private, his WD AGO Form 53-55 (Enlisted Report and Report of Separation) and his discharge certificate (Exhibit A). The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letters prepared...
Evidently, her squadron commander either changed his mind about recommending her, or his commander believed an award was not warranted at the time, or both. _________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD: A majority of the panel finds insufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommends the application be denied. A majority found that applicant had not provided sufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommended the case 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 insufficie nt evidence of error or injustice to warrant corrective action.
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Awards and Decorations Section, Promotion, Evaluation, & Recognition Division, HQ AFPC/DPPPR, reviewed this application and states that without documentation showing the applicant actually accomplished the TDY to Saudi Arabia during January through May 1994, they can not verify his eligibility for the SWASM with 1 Bronze Service Star. Exhibit B. VAUGHN E. SCHLUNZ Panel Chair AFBCMR...
Applicant's submission is at Exhibit A. Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided an investigative report which is attached at Exhibit C. The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request to change his RE code 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). Applicant's...
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 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.
On 16 October 1957, applicant was discharged in the grade of airman basic, under the provisions of AFR 39-18 (Court Conviction), and received a bad conduct discharge. We conclude, therefore, that the discharge proceedings were proper and characterization of the discharge was appropriate to the existing circumstances. We also find insufficient evidence to warrant a recommendation that the discharge be upgraded on the basis of clemency.
In support of the appeal, applicant submits statements from the Vice Commander and Director of Personnel, Air Force Reserve Command (AFRC); the squadron commander; his supervisor, and a copy of the E-mail message which requested the RDP. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and states that since selections were made for the 98E7 cycle on 19 May 1998, his total...
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). Consistent with his findings, the evaluation officer recommended discharge with a general discharge certificate. The records indicate member's military service was reviewed and appropriate action was taken.
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.
Even though the JSAM citation was not on file in the OSR when the board convened, they knew of its existence as evidenced by the entry on the OSB; therefore, the board members were knowledgeable the decoration was awarded to the applicant which is the ultimate purpose of including them in the promotion selection process. DPPPAB is strongly opposed to the applicant receiving SSB consideration for the CY98B promotion board since the original board members were aware of the decoration and it...
Based on the findings of the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) and the applicant’s apparent strong desire to serve his country the Board believed the applicant should be afforded the opportunity to apply for a waiver to enlist in the armed services. A complete copy of the Record of Proceedings is attached at Exhibit H. On 15 May 1999, applicant submitted his statements, Letter, 2BW/JA, dated 30 August 1995, letters of appreciation and recognition, and copies of his records, and his...
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: ~e The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to corrected to show that he received a four-year Active Commitment (ADSC) of 19 November 1999 as a result of his completion of Air Force Institute of Technology...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-02724 INDEX CODE: 110 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be reinstated into the Regular Air Force. The applicant was discharged on 13 August 1998 under the provisions of AFI 36-3208 (Miscellaneous/General Reasons) with an Entry Level Separation and character of service...
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 Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied the applicant's request for upgrade of her discharge (Exhibit C). The AFDRB Brief was forwarded to the applicant f o r review and response (Exhibit D). The decision of the AFDRB appears to be based on the evidence of record and has not been rebutted by applicant.
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 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). 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 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 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). Applicant’s response to the advisory opinions is at Exhibit E. After careful consideration of applicant's request and the limited available evidence of record, we find insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant corrective action. TERRY A. YONKERS Panel Chair Exhibits: A.
He states that if he accepts it, he allows the Military Justice system to punish an innocent member based on a Commanders discretion. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Deputy Chief, Military Justice Division, AFLSA/JAJM reviewed the application and states that with regard to the issue of whether the wife was injured on the right arm or the left arm, the evidence was adequate to support a finding that the wife had suffered an assault....
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 or injustice to warrant corrective action. The Board staff is directed to inform applicant of this 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). 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 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.
Accordingly, we recommend that the applicant’s records be corrected as indicated below. Exhibit B. RICHARD A. PETERSON Panel Chair AFBCMR 98-02772 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 pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to , be corrected to...
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.