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). 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.
Prior to service of the Article 15, the base legal office informed the applicant’s first sergeant that a copy of the evidence was provided to the ADC. Both the ADC and the applicant had ample time to review the evidence prior to the applicant’s deciding whether to accept nonjudicial punishment proceedings. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Inquiries/BCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed this application and indicated that if the Article 15 is...
Title 37, USC, Section 411b, does not provide the ability to allow members to take non-chargeable leave versus the travel entitlement. However, when he filed his travel voucher, he was advised that this was not an entitlement, and, with the exception of three authorized travel days, he was charged ordinary leave. ___________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to...
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. ____________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states that it is correctly pointed out that any dental or medical officer on active duty prior to 14 September 1981, would be paid as a captain with over four years on entry to active duty. All health profession recruiters at that time stated that information;...
The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied applicant s request on 2 6 October 1998. In accordance with policy, the application was forwarded to this Board for further consideration (Exhibit C ) . The decision of the AFDRB 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). Applicant did not identi@ any specific errors in the discharge processing nor provide facts which warrant an upgrade of the discharge he received.
The instructions specifically state, “Officers will not be considered by a Special Selection Board if, in exercising reasonable diligence, the officer should have discovered the error or omission in his/her records and could have taken timely corrective action”. The special order for the 2OLC is dated 25 August 1997, after the applicant’s second BPZ consideration by the CY97C board, but before the applicant’s in-the-promotion zone (IPZ) consideration by the CY98B board. They ask why, at...
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's submission is at Exhibit A. Applicant’s request for the Last Duty Assignment and Major Command be changed to read 523rd AF Band has been administratively corrected by the appropriate Air Force. With respect to his request that his general (under honorable conditions) discharge be changed 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...
Counsel’s response to the advisory opinion is at Exhibit F. 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. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. Members of the Board Mr. David C. Van Gasbeck, Mr. Grover L. Dunn, and Mr. John E. Pettit considered this application on 9 September 1999 in accordance with the provisions of Air Force Instruction...
Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided a copy of an investigation report, which is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Separations Branch, AFPC/DPPRS, reviewed this application and indicated that because the applicant’s master personnel records were destroyed in a fire, they are unable to make a recommendation. The evidence of record reflects that the...
The service has not permanently aggravated member’s condition. Evidence of record establishes beyond all reasonable doubt that the applicant’s condition was service incurred, he did not receive severance pay because he had less than six months service. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 13 July 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Panel...
Applicant's submission is at Exhibit A. Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Washington, D. C., provided a copy of an investigation 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). RICHARD A. PETERSON Panel Chair Exhibits: A.
DONNA PITTENGER Chief Examiner Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records .c DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON, DC SAM 0 7 1999 Office of the Assistant Secretary AF'BCMR 98-03290 MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION BEFORE THE AFBCMR SUBJECT: Having carefully reviewed this application, we agree with the recommendation of the Air Force Evaluation and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has been the victim of either an error or an...
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.
Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Washington, D.C., provided an investigative report which is attached at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Directorate of Personnel Program Management, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, reviewed this application and states that on 10 February 1956, applicant’s commander requested that he be involuntarily discharge for civil conviction. The Air Force in their advisory of 30...
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: 98-03301 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The narrative reason for separation on his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be changed to “attend school.” _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-03302 INDEX CODE: 135.00 COUNSEL: ROBERT T. SUMMA HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be reinstated to the Missouri Air National Guard (MO ANG) in the grade of major, with a retroactive promotion date of May 1997; or in the alternative, his name be placed on the retired Reserve list, with a credit of six...
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 opinion 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 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.
INDEX CODE: 102.05, 131.09 AFBCMR 98-03312 MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION BEFORE THE AFBCMR SUBJECT: APPLICANT Having carefully reviewed this application, we agree with the recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has been the victim of either an error or an injustice. Therefore, under the authority delegated in AFI 36-2603, the applicant's records will be corrected as set...
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/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.
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC) screened his record for errors approximately 90 days prior to the board and overlooked the missing citation. Even though the AFAM 1OLC citation was not on file for the board, it was in evidence before the board as he points out, on his OSB. Since the board members were aware of the AFAM 1OLC, they are convinced it was factored into the applicant’s promotion evaluation.
A copy of the Air Force evaluation, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 27 Sep 99 for review and response within 30 days. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, 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). 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.
A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. The Chief, Officer Promotion Management, HQ AFPC/DPPPOO states in regard to the applicant’s request to set aside the promotion nonselections by the CY93B and CY94A Central Major Selection Boards, that Title 10 clearly establishes that officers not selected for promotion are considered to have failed that promotion. The Secretary of the Air Force did not convene a selective continuation board associated with the CY94A Central Major...
The contested report was filed in applicant’s records on 29 Jul 98. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and provided a one-page statement and a statement from his commander. Therefore, we recommend his record, to include the contested report, be considered by an SSB for the CY98B selection board.
The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied applicant's request on 7 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 offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinion 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 on 8 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.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-03333 INDEX CODE: 111.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 24 February 1995 through 11 June 1996 be declared void and removed from his records, or as an alternative, upgrade the report. They point out that while it is true 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.
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPWB, also reviewed this application and states that the first promotion cycle the contested EPR was considered in the promotion process was cycle 97E7 to master sergeant (promotion effective August 1997 - July 1998). A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...
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.
On 1 October 1998, he lost 2.5 days of leave because the law allows a carry- over of only 60 days. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Utilization, ANG/DPPU, reviewed this case and states that in accordance with AFI 36-3003, IMC 95-2, dated 27 June 1994, restoration of lost leave due to Temporary Duty (TDY) is not appropriate. If that is not what the individual is trying to say then the only other conclusion would be that if he...
On 19 Feb 76, The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered the applicant’s request for a review of his discharge. 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). 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: 98-03346 INDEX NUMBER: 137.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO Applicant requests corrective action to reflect that he made an election to establish Survivor Benefit Plan coverage for his spouse within the first year following their marriage on 20 May 1995. The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Directorate of Personnel Program Management, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, reviewed this application and states that there are no errors or irregularities causing an injustice to the applicant. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 15 February 1999. VAUGHN E. SCHLUNZ Panel Chair AFBCMR 98-03348 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant reviewed the application and states that action and disposition in this case are proper and reflect compliance with Air Force directives which implement the law. Following a thorough review of the case file, they find no error or injustice that would merit a change to the applicant’s military records. Had the Air Force performed an MEB on the former service member, it might...
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.
.L DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE * WASHINGTON, DC, ' v 4 Office of the Assistant Secretary I AFBCMR 98-03360 MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION BEFORE THE AFBCMR SUBJECT : Having carefully reviewed this application, we agree with the recommendation of the Air Force and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicanf has been the victim of either an error or an injustice. Restore 12.5 days' leave lost at FY98 year-end balancing due to assignpent and...
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON, DC F€B 1 8 1399 Office of the Assistant Secretary AFBCMR 98-03361 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 i s directed that: I - records of the Department of the Air Force relating tc be corrected...
AFBCMR 98-03362 MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION BEFORE THE AFBCMR SUBJECT: APPLICANT Having carefully reviewed this application, we agree with the recommendation of the Air Staff and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has been the victim of either an error or an injustice. 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...
Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE Office of the Assistant Secretary c AFBCMR 98-03365 MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION BEFORE THE AFBCMR Having carefully reviewed this application, we agree with the recommendation of the Air Force and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has been the victim of either an error or an injustice. Applicant requests his award of the Air Force Good Conduct Medal. We...
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/counsel for review and response (Exhibit D). Counsel’s response 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/counsel 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). 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.