EPR profile since 1992 reflects the following: PERIOD ENDING OVERALL EVALUATION 29 Jan 92 5 29 Jan 93 5 14 May 94 5 * 14 May 95 5 14 May 96 5 15 Nov 96 5 15 Nov 97 5 5 Oct 98 5 * Contested report _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, Enlisted Promotion & Military Testing Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed this application and states that should the Board replace the report with the closing date of 1 October...
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.
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON DC Office of the Assistant Secretary AFBCMR 98- 02883 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code, and 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 pertinen ment of the Air Force relating to be corrected to with his show that...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Director of Personnel Program Management, HQ ARPC/DPP, reviewed the application and states that the applicant enlisted in the California Air National Guard (CAANG) on 14 March 1956 and remained with the unit until 8 June 1958. His record shows that he earned a total of 88 points during R/R year ending 13 March 1957; therefore, it appears he was awarded points for that time period. DAVID W....
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-02887 INDEX CODE: 131.00 APPLICANT COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His P0598B Officer Selection Brief (OSB) be updated to reflect his Joint Duty History and Joint Reporting Category and that he be considered for promotion to lieutenant colonel by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for the CY98B...
On 27 October 1997, applicant requested his release from active duty stating Miscellaneous Reasons for the reason for action requested. Applicant contends that he agreed to join the military for four years because his recruiter led him to believe that his pay would be $8,000.00 more per year; and that a fair settlement would be a partial waiver of his ADSC and acceptance of his separation from the Air Force on July 28, 1999. The fact that he did not supports the conclusion that the total...
He states that he was advised of the incorrect return date by Headquarters Air Reserve Personnel Center (ARPC) staff and that he was not aware of the May 98 change to the benefit plan selection process. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 30 Nov 98 for review and response within 30 days. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in...
The Statement of Understanding, dated 14 November 1995 indicates that upon promotion to the grade of captain, applicant would incur a one-year active duty service commitment (ADSC) from the effective date of promotion. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Officer Promotion Section, HQ AFPC/DPPPOO, states that the applicant was denied promotion to the grade of captain due to her inability to complete the one-year active duty...
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The reasons applicant believes he has been the victim of an error and/or an injustice are contained in his complete submission, which is at Exhibit A. The Officer Verification Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPAOR, also reviewed the case and provided a technical advisory pertaining to the DOR computation. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that his DOR...
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The reasons applicant believes he has been the victim of an error and/or an injustice are contained in his complete submission, which is at Exhibit A. When members schedule leave in late September, they risk losing days if unable to take leave as planned due to unforeseen circumstances, such as a short-notice temporary duty (TDY). _________________________________________________________________ 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.
His corrected record be considered by Special Selection Board (SSB) for the CY97C Lieutenant Colonel Board. As such, they receive exhaustive reviews prior to becoming a matter of record. Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 16 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.
Applicant contends his supervisor rendered the contested 3 March 1994 report in reprisal against him and requests the Board remove the report from his record. While the applicant has provided a statement from his former supervisor who states that a recommendation package was submitted, we are not persuaded that his former supervisor had the authority to submit an award recommendation or that the applicant was eligible for an award at the time his supervisor went PCS. If supplemental...
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’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 office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit B). Advisory Opinion C. SAF/MIBR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinion DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE HEADQUARTERS AIR FORCE PERSONNEL CENTER RANDOLPH AIR FORCE BASE, TEXAS MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR FROM: HQ AFPCDPPD 550 C Street West Ste 06 Randolph AFB TX 78 150-4708 SUBJECT: orrection of Military Rec 21 Oct 98 REQUESTED ACTION: Applicant requests...
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.
On 11 September 1952, the Air Force Board of Review set aside the findings of guilty of Charge II and all specifications thereunder and affirmed the sentence as modified to provide for a dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances and confinement at hard labor for 1 year and 6 months. He was sentenced to a dishonorable discharge and one year and 6 months’ confinement. We therefore conclude that no basis exists to recommend favorable action on the applicant’s request.
On 13 April 1999, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied applicant’s request for change of reason for discharge (see AFDRB Hearing Record at Exhibit C). The AFDRB Hearing Record was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). Available Master Personnel Records C. AFDRB Hearing Record D. SAF/MIBR Ltr Forwarding AFDRB Hearing Record
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). 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). 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). A response from the applicant’s wife 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.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-02928 INDEX CODE: 121.03 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: Yes Applicant requests thirteen (13) days of leave be restored to his current leave balance. 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...
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.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-02931 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The reason for her separation be changed from “Fraudulent Entry” to “Unlikely to Adjust to Military Life.” _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The reasons the applicant believes the...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-02932 INDEX NUMBER: 131.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by Special Selection Board (SSB) for the Calendar Year (CY) 1998B Central Lieutenant Colonel Board, with the Joint Service Achievement Medal (JSAM) included in his...
Current Air Force promotion policy dictates that before a decoration is credited for a specific promotion cycle, the close date of the decoration must be on or before the promotion eligibility cutoff date (PECD), and the date of the DECOR-6, Request for Decoration Printout (RDP), must be before the date of selections for the cycle in question. DPPPWB indicated that the applicant’s AFAM 1OLC does not meet the criteria for promotion credit during the 98E6 cycle because there is no...
DPASA stated that when the applicant’s record met the selection board he was not a corps member, thus, no error occurred (Exhibit D). Therefore, the board had the correct information in evidence when his record was considered by the P0598B board. We noted that the appropriate Air Force office has made the requested duty title corrections to applicant’s assignment history.
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). Members of the Board Mrs. Barbara A. Westgate, Mr. David C. Van Gasbeck, and Ms. Ann L. Heidig, 23 March 1999 considered this application in accordance with the provisions of Air Force Instruction 36-2603, and the governing statute, 10, U.S.C.
It is recommended that he be considered for promotion to the grade of major by Special Selection Board (SSB) for the CY86B and any subsequent boards for which the now-corrected date of rank to the grade of captain was a matter of record. TERRY A. YONKERS Panel Chair AFBCMR 98-02950 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...
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.
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Legislation and Compensation Division, HQ AF/DPRC, reviewed this application and recommended denial since the applicant had ample time to initiate his Consecutive Overseas Tour (COT) leave travel entitlement. By the time the applicant was released from administrative hold, it was beyond the time limit to use his COT leave travel entitlement. MICHAEL P. HIGGINS Panel Chair AFBCMR 98-02957 MEMORANDUM...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO: 98-02962 INDEX CODE: 107.00 COUNSEL: VFW HEARING DESIRED: NO Applicant requests that he be awarded the Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM) and Air Force Good Conduct Medal (AFGCM). The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request concerning the AFCM and AFGCM and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinion...
We conclude therefore, that the discharge proceedings were proper in characterization of the discharge and was appropriate to the existing circumstances. Exhibit B. Exhibit C. AFDRB Brief, dated 15 November 1996.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-02967 INDEX CODE: 100 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed to a favorable code. Unfortunately, the AF Form 418 denying applicant reenlistment is not on file in her military personnel record. Therefore, we have no basis on which to make any changes...
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON, DC FEB - 8 7999 Office of the Assistant Secretary AFBCMR 9 8 - 0 2 9 6 9 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code and Air Force Instruction 3 6 - 2 6 0 3 , 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: artment of the Air The pertinen Force relating to , 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). 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: 98-02973 INDEX CODE 100.05 131.01 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be given Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration for the Calendar Year 1998B (CY98B) Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection board with his Officer Selection Brief (OSB) reflecting the duty history and Duty Air Force Specialty...
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 and counsel 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 NO: 98-02979 INDEX CODE: 105.00 106.00 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: Yes Applicant requests his bad conduct 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 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). 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'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 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 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.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-02991 INDEX CODE: 100.06 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 2X be changed to one that will allow her entry into the Air Force or Air Force Reserve. A complete copy of the evaluation is 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). 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). 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 action. The facts and opinions stated in the advisory opinions appear to be based on the evidence of...