The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). Accordingly, applicant's request is denied. 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 appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). Requested Action. The records indicate member’s military service was reviewed and appropriate action was taken.
The effective date is the date of Federal recognition and Federal recognition is defined as the date ANG/MPPS receives the promotion request. After reviewing the evidence of record, that Board is of the opinion that, in accordance with Title 10, United States Code, Section 14308(f) Effective Date of Promotion after Federal Recognition, the applicant’s effective date of promotion is correct. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The...
_________________________________________________________________ DFAS-DE EVALUATION: The Chief, Claims Branch, DFAS-DE/FYCC, reviewed the application and states that they contacted the Waivers and Remission Branch (DFAS- DE/FYCT) for their recommendation and were informed that, had they received the applicant’s remission application prior to his separation on 9 August 1996, they would have recommended remission of $528.75 and denial of $753.04 based on guidelines set forth by the Office 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). 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 only evidence applicant submits to support his request is a 14 September 1998 Air Force Times article reporting an out-of-court settlement in Baker v. United States, 34 Fed.Cl. Applicant explains that when he was forced to retire in 1992, the Air Force “provided no information on the SERB board. Thus, the Board would have to reach the conclusion that the Air Force settled the Baker case because the Charge was flawed and consequently, applicant’s selection for early retirement...
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The Recognition Programs Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPRA, advised the applicant on 16 October 1998 that his DD Form 214 had been administratively corrected to reflect award of the VSM. The Air Force concluded he served five months in Thailand, which entitled him to be administratively awarded the VSM. RICHARD A. PETERSON Panel Chair AFBCMR 98-02788 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered...
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). 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.
The only evidence applicant submits to support his request is a 14 September 1998 Air Force Times article reporting an out-of-court settlement in Baker v. United States, 34 Fed.Cl. In regard to the merits of the applicant’s requests, AF/JAG states that first, they recommend the application be denied as untimely. For the public policy reasons discussed above, they believe the Board should not permit an out-of-court settlement agreement to be used as evidence the applicant was not fairly...
Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, Enlisted Promotion & Military Testing Branch, AFPC/DPPPWB, also reviewed this application and states that Air Force policy dictates that before a decoration is credited for a specific promotion cycle, the closeout date of the decoration must be on or before the promotion eligibility cutoff date (PECD), and the date of...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-02799 INDEX CODE: 131.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: Not indicated _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: She 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. ...
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 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.
t AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 9 8 - 0 2 8 0 8 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO Applicant requests that his current enlistment be changed to an extension, or he be allowed to reenlist with a higher Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) Multiple. 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...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-02809 INDEX CODE: 131.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be reconsidered for promotion to staff sergeant (E-5) for the 93A5 cycle (promotions effective Sep 92 - Aug 93) in Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) 545X2 and to technical sergeant (E-6) for the 98E6 cycle (promotions effective Aug 98 -...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-02810 INDEX 106.00 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His 1996 general discharge be upgraded to honorable so he can join the Air National Guard or the Reserves. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: After a personal hearing on 3 September 1998,...
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). Members of the Board Mr. David C. Van Gasbeck, Mr. Grover L. Dunn, and Mr. E. David Hoard considered this application on 6 May 1999 in accordance with the provisions of Air Force Instruction 36-2603, and the governing statute, 10, U.S.C.
The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) upgraded the applicant’s discharge to general on 12 September 1978. The AFDRB brief was forwarded to applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). The facts and opinions stated in the AFDRB brief appear to be based on the evidence of record and their basis for not upgrading the discharge to honorable has not been rebutted by applicant.
In support of his contention, the applicant submits a copy of an AF Form 63, Officer Airman Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) Counseling Statement, purported counter signed by a Military Personnel Flight official on 16 December 1996 indicating that he incurred an ADSC of 14 June 1998 as a result of Advanced Flying Training. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air...
After he had completed twenty-seven months, the recruiters were unable to find a position for him for twenty months. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Separations Branch, AFPC/DPPRS, reviewed this application and indicated that the applicant applied for the Palace Chase program in accordance with AFI 36-3205 and his application was approved with the provisions that he must affiliate with the Air Force Reserves within one (1) year...
For this offense he was court-martialed and sentenced to 30 day's confinement. He served 1 year 11 months and 20 days total active duty with 198 days lost time. _________________________________________________________________ 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. Charles E. Bennett, Member Mr. Jackson A. Hauslein, Member The following documentary...
The applicant was discharged from the Air Force because he was not promoted to 1st lieutenant. He urges the Board to please grant this requested hearing so that the truth in this can be made known. After reviewing the evidence of record and the documentation submitted with this appeal, we note that the commander’s recommendation that the applicant was not qualified for promotion to 1st lieutenant was found legally sufficient and was approved by the Secretary of the Air Force.
In support of his request, applicant submits copies of his AFI 36-2401 application, the AFI 36-2401 Decision, his OPR closing 15 Jun 97, and a statement from his Military Personnel Flight (MPR) (Exhibit A). Although the final evaluator signed the OPR on 27 Jun 97, the fact remains the OPR was not required to be filed in the applicant’s OSR before the selection board convened on 21 Jul 97 (Exhibit C). Despite the fact the 15 Jun 97 OPR was submitted on the correct closeout date, it was the...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-02827 INDEX CODE 106.00 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her general discharge be upgraded to honorable and her reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of “2B” (Involuntarily discharged with general or UOTHC characterization) be changed so she can join the Air National Guard. A copy of the complete...
There are currently no provisions of law for officers promoted to the grades of lieutenant colonel and above, who are medically disqualified for worldwide duty, to retire in grade with less than three years satisfactory service. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that he should be retired from the U. S. Air Force Reserve in the higher grade of colonel. We therefore agree with the recommendations of the Air Force and adopt the...
He also acknowledged that this action may result in his discharge from the Air Force with either a general or an honorable discharge and that his failure to consult counsel or to submit statements would constitute a waiver of his right to do so. The reason for his discharge was his failure to proceed scholastically in the Air Force. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 27...
More importantly, however, although an error was made in denying applicant a board hearing this application was not timely filed and, under the unique circumstances of this case, we believe it would be proper to deny the application on that basis. Should the Board not deny the application on that basis, they recommend applicant be reinstated on active duty to afford him an opportunity to present his case to an administrative discharge board. After reviewing the evidence of record, which...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Commanders’ Programs Branch, AFPC/DPSFC, reviewed this application and indicated that although the applicant states that he was unable to take leave in Sep due to short-notice that he had to attend the SNCOA, this is not a valid reason to carry over more than 60 days into FY99. When they schedule leave in Sep, they risk losing days if unable to take the leave due to unforeseen circumstances...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-02836 INDEX NUMBER: 1112.0 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His enlistment date of rank (DOR) of 6 May 1998 be changed to reflect he received one-half of the time in grade (TIG) credit from his previous Active Duty tour. ...
The only evidence applicant submits to support his request is a 14 September 1998 Air Force Times article reporting an out-of-court settlement in Baker v. United States, 34 Fed.Cl. Applicant explains that when he was forced to retire in 1992, the Air Force “provided no information on the SERB board. No one in the Air Force has disputed the fact that the Air Force provided improper instructions to the SERB.
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided a 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.
On 2 December 1997, the MPF provided a retirement estimate of $1,483 per month to the applicant. They produced a retirement pay estimate of $1,391, a difference of $7 from the applicant’s actual retired pay. At the time the applicant was considering retirement, the MPF provided him with an estimate of his retirement pay.
Applicant enlisted in the Air Force Reserve on 7 September 1982, in the grade of staff sergeant (E-5). After reviewing the evidence submitted with this appeal, we are not persuaded that the applicant’s grade at the time of his discharge from the Air Force is either in error or unjust. However, there is no record of a promotion to the grade of staff sergeant in the member’s military records.
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Retirements Branch, Directorate, Personnel Program Mgmt, AFPC/DPPRR, reviewed this application and states the estimate the applicant received on 2 December 1997 clearly states “the dollar amount shown below is an estimate of your retirement pay.” This document also directs members to “Contact DFAS-CL for official retired pay estimates.” There is no evidence the applicant ever consulted that agency. They produced a...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Director of Personnel Program Management, HQ ARPC/DP, states that applicant’s point history was corrected 31 January 1984; however, he had already been a nonselect for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel for the second time. According to the point credit branch records, applicant had a history of submitting points two or three years after the fact. It is the member’s responsibility...
___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC) added a training commitment that he was not counseled about and did not agree to; that it is unfair for this commitment to be added almost one year after the training was completed; that he was counseled that the commitment would only be two years since he was a prior T-38 instructor pilot (IP); and that he was not asked to sign for a three-year commitment on an...
Although the JSAM was not reflected on the OSB, the citation was on file in the OSR and, therefore, present for the board’s consideration. The Air Force acknowledges that while the JSAM was not reflected on applicant’s OSB, the citation was a part of her selection record that was reviewed by the promotion board. It is highly unlikely this was the cause of her nonselection since central boards evaluate the entire officer record.
Changed 970813 to 970420 when the officer returned to active duty and to coincide with the OPR for the period 20 April 1997 - 10 December 1997. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit F. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 22 March 1999, for review and response. The Air Force states that the applicant has 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). 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). 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.
After an oral presentation, the wing commander determined that the applicant violated a general regulation, but he did not commit dereliction of duty. Article 15 actions are, and always have been, official personnel actions. RICHARD A. PETERSON Panel Chair AFBCMR 98-02860 INDEX CODE: 126.00 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...
Applicant’s request and documentary evidence are at Exhibit A. However, if the Board considers the case on the evidence provided, DPPPA recommended that the DAFSC on the contested report be changed from “4A41” to “41A3.” They did not recommend adding the “C” prefix to the DAFSC. DPPPA stated that each member of an organization is assigned to a duty position number in accordance with the Unit Personnel Management Roster (UPMR).
AFBCMR 98-02864 INDEX CODE: 110.02 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 pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that he was discharged from active...
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). 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.
After careful consideration of applicant's request and the limited documentation which was available, we find insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant corrective action. 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.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-02868 INDEX CODE: 131.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be considered for promotion to major by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for the CY97C Major Board, with inclusion of the citation for the Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM), 1st Oak Leaf Cluster (1OLC), in his Officer Selection...
Allegation that applicant failed to set the example as commander and an officer by violating unit policies was not substantiated. All but one of the allegations were substantiated. Should the Board determine that the evidence in the existing case file is insufficient to render its decision, JA would agree with DPPP that the Board should review a complete copy of the original report of investigation conducted in this case.
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON, DC Oftice of the Assistant Secretary AFBCMR 98- 02876 JAN I5 I999 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: . Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records DEPARTMENT OF THE...