In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a copies of the contested report, personnel data, and an extract from an Air Force manual. Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. DPPPA indicated that the applicant has provided no material evidence confirming he was approved for an assigned against a position coded with the DAFSC “T11H3C” on the closeout date of the contested report.
___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was told the ADSC for C-27 training would be lowered from three years to one year by HQ AFPC because the C-27 would be terminated from the Air Force inventory in January 1999; that this reduction was designed to make the commitment commensurate with the existence of the C-27 program; that he volunteered and was accepted for assignment to fly C-27s at Howard AB, Panama, under that understanding;...
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.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-03008 INDEX CODE: 133.03 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His rank of master sergeant (E-7) be reinstated. The commander also imposed a punishment he believed was appropriate for the offenses committed. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES...
On 7 September 1983, applicant received an Article 15 for wrongfully having in his possession, and using, some quantity of marijuana on or about 4 August 1983, with imposed punishment as reduction in grade to airman, with a new date of rank 7 September 1983, and ordered to forfeit $100.00. Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Washington, D.C., provided an investigative report which is attached at Exhibit...
The Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) reviewed by the CY98B board reflected a promotion recommendation of “Promote.” According to the advisory opinions (Exhibits C, D, and E with Addendum), amendments were made to both the OSB and the PRF before the CY98B board convened. According to HQ AFPC/DPPPE’s advisory (Exhibit D), the CY98 AETC Management Level Review (CY98B) president approved the corrected PRF and determined the “Promote” recommendation was still appropriate. It appears that 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). 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.
Therefore, under the authority delegated in AFI 36- 2603, the applicant’s records will be corrected as set forth in the accompanying Memorandum for the Chief of Staff signed by the Executive Director of the Board or his designee. application, dated 9 Oct 98. ere involved in a traffic acci ing injuries, requiring ccompanied his son to all The Joint Federal Travel Regulations, Volume 1 (JFTR), Chapter 7, Part Q, Paragraph U7550-A allows the member’s commanding officer or order-issuing...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-03025 INDEX CODE: 111.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Enlisted Performance Reports (EPR) closing 19 Mar 97 and 25 Jul 97 be declared void and removed from his records. Concerning the EPR closing 25 Jul 97, DPPPA noted the applicant’s contention that the 25 Jul 97 EPR was biased against...
In support of the appeal, applicant submits a statement from the Tactics Officer, Air Force Reserve Command (AFRC), indicating that through no fault of his own, the AFCM, 3 OLC, on the applicant was lost in the personnel system. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Appeals and SSB Branch, AFPC/DPPPA, reviewed this application and states that OPRs are due for file at AFPC no later than 60 days following the closeout date of the report. A complete...
In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a personal statement, character statements, a college acceptance letter, a statement from a clinical psychologist, his student training report and performance summary, an outprocessing checklist dated 13 Jan 98, a mental health evaluation dated 26 Jan 98, the commander’s memo directing a mental evaluation dated 27 Jan 98, the disenrollment action dated 6 Feb 98 and signed by the commander on 9 Feb 98, a notification letter dated 6 Feb 98, and...
During the period of 7 Oct 44 through 9 Apr 45, the applicant completed 30 operational missions. The applicant did not respond to DPPR’s letter requesting a copy of his Report of Separation. Without any additional documentation to support his request, DPPPR cannot verify the applicant’s eligibility for the DFC; therefore, they recommend the applicant’s request be denied (Exhibit B).
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). 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/counsel.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-03034 INDEX CODE: 110 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No Applicant requests that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. The Board staff is directed to inform applicant of this decision. DAVID C. VAN GASBECK Panel Chair Exhibits: A.
At the time the FY92 SERB was first announced to the field (in early September 1991) the law did not permit exclusion of eligibility of officers with approved retirements from consideration by SERBs; therefore, at that time, even though applicant had an approved retirement, he met the eligibility requirements to be considered by SERB for early retirement. Additionally, applicant was not considered or selected for retirement by the FY92 SERB which convened in January 1992 but,...
Applicant’s Officer Selection Record (OSR) at the time the CY98B board convened did not contain a copy of the citation to accompany the award of the MSM (2OLC). A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states that in reference to paragraph e, pertaining to the MSM 2OLC, if the only goal is to make board member...
At the time applicant was considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the CY98B board, his OSB reflected his duty title as Commander, DDD Letterkenny, effective 26 Jun 97. The next duty entry of 960613 was changed to reflect information on the next OPR of record. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Supply Officer Assignments, AFPC/DPASL, reviewed this application and indicated that regarding applicant’s request to change his...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-03041 INDEX NUMBER: 131.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be considered for promotion to the grade of major by Special Selection Board (SSB) for the Calendar Year (CY) 1998B Major Central Selection Board, with the citation to accompany the Joint Service Commendation Medal (JSCM) included...
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 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.
None of the units to which the applicant was assigned earned the Air Force Outstanding Unit Award (without a “V”) during his periods of assignment, and it would not be listed as a separate award on his DD Form 214. DPPPRA recommended disapproval of the applicant’s request to correct his DD Form 214 to reflect award of the Air Force Outstanding Unit Award, the Air Force Outstanding Unit Award with V and 4 Oak Leaf Clusters, and the Small Arms Expert Marksmanship Ribbon. MARTHA MAUST Panel...
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). 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 or counsel.
On 3 March 1995, HQ ARPC published a “Request and Authorization for Change of Administrative Orders” and upon receipt, he telephone HQ ARPC to confirm that IDTs, and related billeting/travel expenses, were authorized. He was denied reimbursement of expenses related to authorized IDT performed 12 - 18 March 1995. Applicant was paid authorized reimbursements for his annual tour for the period 5 - 12 March 1995 and was denied all expenses incurred during his IDT period IAW the Joint Federal...
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). 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). Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO: 98-03064 INDEX CODE 107.00 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No Applicant requests his records reflect award of the Distinguished Unit Citation (DUC) for 1942-1943, the Silver Star (SS) Medal, and the Prisoner of War (POW) Medal for June-November 1942, Turkey. The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the...
The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied applicant's request on 6 October 1998. 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 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: 98-03068 INDEX CODE: 131.00 COUNSEL: HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Applicant is the widow of a former service member who requests that the former service member’s records be corrected to reflect he was honorably discharged in the grade of sergeant rather than private. The applicant, the widow of a...
___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief Medical Consultant, AFBCMR, is of the opinion that, in order to correct an injustice of improperly labeling the applicant’s disorder, the applicant’s request for change of reason for discharge should be granted. The applicant was given an entry level separation with uncharacterized service after a mental health evaluation had determined that he suffered from an adjustment disorder of such...
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.
DPPPWB stated a review of the applicant’s HQ Air Force Selection Folder reflects that the citation for the JSAM was filed in his selection folder on 16 October 1998. Therefore, a majority of the Board recommends that the applicant be given supplemental consideration for promotion to the grade of senior master sergeant with the citation for the JSAM included in his records. ___________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent 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.
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.
HQ AFPC/DPPAE informally advised the AFBCMR Staff that she could have reenlisted on 20 July 1998, when she had assumed the SRA because members can reenlist within three duty days beyond their DOS. Since HQ AFPC/DPPAE informally advised that a member can reenlist within three duty days beyond the DOS, we recommend the applicant’s records be corrected as indicated below to allow her to receive her SRB at the appropriate pay grade without a break in service. ...
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 18 June 1996, the applicant was appointed a cadet in the United States Air Force Academy. They recommended that he be disenrolled for academic deficiency. The father states that at no time has he ever charged that the Academy failed to follow Air Force regulations.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-03092 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His discharge be upgraded to general and he be awarded the Good Conduct Medal. On 16 December 1954, the discharge authority accepted the application for discharge for unfitness and directed the applicant be issued an undesirable...
Applicant's submission is at Exhibit A. Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Clarksburg, WV, provided an investigative report which is attached at Exhibit C. The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request 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 response to the advisory opinion is at...
On 10 Jun 98, applicant was notified of his commander’s intent to impose nonjudicial punishment upon him for violating a lawful general regulation by wrongfully using his government AMEX card for personal purposes. After noting the seriousness of the offense for which the Article 15 was issued (misuse of AMEX card), and the reason for the issuance of the LOR (unprofessional relationship with a subordinate female officer), a majority of the Board does not find that the Article 15 action or...
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 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.
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied based on the documentation submitted (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: 98-03114 INDEX CODE: 131.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be considered for promotion to lieutenant colonel by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for the CY98B (1 Jun 98) Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, with inclusion of the citation for the Air Force Commendation Medal, 1st Oak...
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.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO: 98-03122 INDEX CODE121.03 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: Applicant requests leave compensation for 56 days of down time, 8 days of missed Federal holidays, and 48 days for missed weekends for his sacrifice as a member in a permanent change of station position, and in light of new policies of time off after long deployments. The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request...
(Exhibit C) The Separations Branch, AFPC/DPPRS, reviewed this application and recommended denial, stating the applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors in the discharge processing nor provide facts, which support a change in the separation reason and reenlistment code she received. After careful consideration of the circumstances of this case and the evidence provided by the applicant, we are not persuaded that the discharge action was in error or unjust. Based on...
He also believes he may have been nonselected because of a perception among the board members that he spent too much time at Kirtland AFB, NM. DPPPA stated that it was the applicant’s responsibility to notify the board of the circumstances surrounding his extended tenure at one location, and the omission of the duty title effective 18 Dec 93 from his OSB if he believed them important to his promotion consideration. ...
98-03 126 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF c 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: of the Department of the Air Force relating to e corrected to show that she was honorably discharged ber 1998, and reenlisted in the Regular Air Force on 2 October...
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: On 5 October 1998, she received a copy of her selection record and discovered that her most current OPR for the period 14 March 1997 through 13 March 1998, was missing from the record and that her OPRs for the periods 14 March 1995 through 13 March 1996 and 14 March 1996 through 13 March 1997 did not accurately reflect the duties she performed. Applicant also submits a statement from the rater on the...