A summary of the evidence considered by the Board and the rationale for its decision is set forth in the Record of Proceedings, which is attached at Exhibit E. The applicant provided additional new evidence pertaining to his medical condition for possible reconsideration of his application (Exhibit F). He has been treated for other medical conditions, which were found to have happened while he was on active duty from June 1979 - June 1995. ...
A summary of the evidence considered by the Board and the rationale for its decision is set forth in the Record of Proceedings, which is attached at Exhibit E. The applicant provided additional new evidence pertaining to his medical condition for possible reconsideration of his application (Exhibit F). He has been treated for other medical conditions, which were found to have happened while he was on active duty from June 1979 - June 1995. ...
On , the Board reconsidered the applicant’s appeal, in which he requested that his compensable disability rating be increased from 30 percent to 50 percent, effective . DPPD noted that the applicant was now applying for his third correction of his military record based upon the DVA’s “Notice of Disagreement” wherein the Board of Veterans’ Appeals concluded that the preponderance of evidence supported the assignment of a 70 percent rating for the applicant’s service-connected disability. A...
On 1 Feb 96, the Board reconsidered the applicant’s appeal, in which he requested that his compensable disability rating be increased from 30 percent to 50 percent, effective 4 Dec 89. DPPD noted that the applicant was now applying for his third correction of his military record based upon the DVA’s “Notice of Disagreement” wherein the Board of Veterans’ Appeals concluded that the preponderance of evidence supported the assignment of a 70 percent rating for the applicant’s service-connected...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Director of Personnel Program Management, HQ ARPC/DPJA, reviewed this application and states that at the present time, under the ROPMA, they do not have the authority to hold SSBs for PV promotions. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, to include the...
A complete copy of the Record of Proceedings is attached at Exhibit H. On 1 December 1998, counsel for the applicant submitted additional documentation and requested reconsideration of the application. The statements from the senior rater and the MLEB president were noted; however, since these individuals were aware that applicant had been nominated for the award of the Lance P. Sijan USAF Leadership Award, we were not persuaded the contested PRF should be replaced. After reviewing the...
A complete copy of the Record of Proceedings is attached at Exhibit H. On 1 December 1998, counsel for the applicant submitted additional documentation and requested reconsideration of the application. The statements from the senior rater and the MLEB president were noted; however, since these individuals were aware that applicant had been nominated for the award of the Lance P. Sijan USAF Leadership Award, we were not persuaded the contested PRF should be replaced. After reviewing the...
We recognize that the applicant did not provide evidence that the former servicemember’s common-law marriage was legally dissolved. Accordingly, we recommend that the records be corrected as indicated below. Exhibit B.
He was promoted to sergeant (E-4) on 1 September 1973 and released from active duty and transferred to the Air Force Reserve in this grade. A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit F. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant’s counsel submitted a letter stating that the applicant questioned his enlistment in the Regular Air Force under the Stripes for Education program. After a thorough...
Counsel’s complete reconsideration request is at Exhibit H. The ROP did reflect the correct date (21 March 1994) of the meeting with the rater, additional rater, the applicant and his wife in the Statement of Facts section, and also indicated in the summary of the legal evaluation that the pertinent date used in the AFLSA/JAJM advisory (21 May 1994) was incorrect. The applicant claimed no unauthorized disclosure of confidential information during the original inquiry and presented no...
Counsel’s complete reconsideration request is at Exhibit H. The ROP did reflect the correct date (21 March 1994) of the meeting with the rater, additional rater, the applicant and his wife in the Statement of Facts section, and also indicated in the summary of the legal evaluation that the pertinent date used in the AFLSA/JAJM advisory (21 May 1994) was incorrect. The applicant claimed no unauthorized disclosure of confidential information during the original inquiry and presented no...
_________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, to include the attached Promotion Recommendation Form, AF Form 709, for cycle U0498A, be considered for promotion to the Reserve grade of major by a Special Review Board; that his record be evaluated in comparison with the records of officers who were and were not selected by the Fiscal Year 1998 Air Force...
On 30 Sep 98, the Board considered and denied applicant’s requests, concluding that since he received SSB consideration by the CY94A board with the corrected assignment history and was not selected for promotion, the Board was not persuaded that the same correction would enhance his record sufficiently to warrant promotion by the CY95B board. A complete copy of the ROP is attached at Exhibit H. On 27 Feb 99, the applicant requested reconsideration of his application and asks that his...
Also, the fact that since his assignment to the Retired Reserve, effective 14 July 1994, he has been issued annually a Medical Certificate First Class by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) as he has been, and is, performing flying duties as a commercial multi-jet pilot on a full time basis effective 14 July 1994. On 19 January 1994, a letter from Colonel B---, Chief, Aerospace Medicine Division, Directorate, Health Services to Headquarters Air Force Reserve (HQ AFRES) Physical...
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Recognition Programs Branch, AFPC/DPPPRA, reviewed t h i s application and states t h a t they have reviewed the TDY orders provided by applicant, and stili cannot verify his eligibility for the Kuwait Liberation Medal or t h e Southwest Asia- Service Medal. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit G . After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record and the additional documentation sLzbmitted by applicant, we are still not persuaded...
RAYMOND H. WELLER Chief Examiner Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 97-01773 INDEX CODE: 131.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be considered for promotion to the Reserve grade of major by Special Selection Board (SSB) for the Fiscal Year 1998 (FY98) Air Force Reserve Major...
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. The Senior Attorney-Advisor, AFPC/JA, reviewed this application and states that the entire Air Force promotion recommendation process is totally a creature of Air Force regulation; it is not governed at all by statute or DoD Directive. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit E. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states that...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 97-01799 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His discharge be upgraded from general (under honorable conditions) to honorable and he receive separation pay. They further state that the records indicate that applicant’s military service was reviewed and appropriate action was taken. The applicant states that his first sergeant indicated that he...
The applicant was assigned to an active Air Force Reserve position on 20 October 1997 and has been subsequently promoted to the grade of technical sergeant, (E-6), Air Force Reserve, with an effective date and date of rank of 1 May 1998. He was promoted to E-5 on 1 May 1997. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: After a thorough review of the evidence of record and counsel’s submission, we are unpersuaded that the applicant’s date of...
The applicant was assigned to an active Air Force Reserve position on 20 October 1997 and has been subsequently promoted to the grade of technical sergeant, (E-6), Air Force Reserve, with an effective date and date of rank of 1 May 1998. He was promoted to E-5 on 1 May 1997. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: After a thorough review of the evidence of record and counsel’s submission, we are unpersuaded that the applicant’s date of...
_________________________________________________________________ OFFICE OF PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY EVALUATION: The Chief, Claims Branch, DFAS-DE/FYCC, advises that review of the applicant’s pay records shows he resigned from the Air Force Reserves with an effective date of August 2, 1996. Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL EVALUATIONS: The Chief, Retirement Branch, HQ ARPC/DPAR,...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Report and Queries Section, AFPC/DPAIS1, indicated that a review of the applicant’s duty history revealed that the upgrade to “Chief, Electronic Combat Systems” was entered into the PDS with an effective date of 1 Aug 94. A complete copy of the DPAIS1 evaluation is at Exhibit C. The Selection Board Secretariat, AFPC/DPPB, reviewed this application and indicated that they disagreed with the...
By letter, dated 2 Nov 96, the applicant was notified that since she had been twice considered and not recommended for promotion, the law required that her active status as an officer in the Air National Guard and as a Reserve of the Air Force be terminated not later than 15 Nov 96. Counsel’s complete response is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Promotions Branch,...
Specifically, they note the statement “If the OER/OPR does not agree with the requested changes, a request must be submitted to correct the OER/OPR.” A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Appeals and SSB Branch, AFPC/DPPPA, reviewed the application and states that the officer preselection brief (OPB) is sent to each eligible officer several months prior to a selection board. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit...
ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: 80-03066 97-02285 INDEX CODES: A93.35, 111.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His honorable discharge and any and all records and or system(s) of records or information of the Department of the Air Force relating to his discharge be voided. The adverse decision of the Board of...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 97-02411 INDEX CODE: 126.04 COUNSEL: GEORGE E. DAY HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 initiated on 23 Jul 96 and imposed on 26 Jul 96 be set aside and removed from his records, and that all rights, privileges, and benefits taken from him because of the Article 15 be...
Based on member’s application for the records correction, they will correct his account retroactive to 9 August 1991, six years from the date that he submitted his request for the records correction. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that he was not retired from the Air Force under the provisions of AFR 39-20 on 1 September...
ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 97-02443 INDEX CODE: 136.00 COUNSEL: RONALD P. KELLER HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Dropped from the Rolls (DFR) action be rescinded and he be retired in the grade of lieutenant colonel. On 11 Aug 98, the Board considered and denied an application for correction of military records...
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 applicant states that an individual in his Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) was promoted to the grade of technical sergeant during cycle 97E6 with a lower total promotion score than he had scored. However, we note that unlike the applicant, the referenced individual was initially considered in AFSC 2A3X2B and was the only one in the AFSC who was initially selected for promotion with a total score of 326.04. Although the applicant contends he too should be promoted since his score was...
ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 97-02548 APPLICANT COUNSEL: None SSN HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ RESUME OF CASE On 26 March 1998, the Board considered and denied applicant's 10 May 1997 application requesting that (1) his discharge diagnosis, Axis I, be corrected to (a) Major Depression, without psychotic features, and (b) Brief Reactive Psychosis;...
ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 97-02548 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ RESUME OF CASE On 26 March 1998, the Board considered and denied applicant's 10 May 1997 application requesting that (1) his discharge diagnosis, Axis I, be corrected to (a) Major Depression, without psychotic features, and (b) Brief Reactive Psychosis; (2) The...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Military Personnel Division, , reviewed this application and noted that a review of the demotion actions against the applicant indicated he was demoted from technical sergeant (TSgt) to staff sergeant (SSgt), under the authority of Article 15 action, effective 23 May 94, for dereliction of duty. The evidence of record reflects that the applicant was reduced from the grade of technical sergeant to...
However, members of this class, as well as the Classes of 1986 and 1987, received documented miscounseling concerning the DOPMA changes. Notwithstanding the clear and accurate contract applicants signed, the Bulletin’s misinformation, coupled with specific instances of miscounseling by various USUHS and United States Air Force Academy (USAFA) officials, led this Board to grant constructive credit relief en bloc to the Classes of 1985 and 1986 – but not to the Class of 1987. The only...
However, members of this class, as well as the Classes of 1986 and 1987, received documented miscounseling concerning the DOPMA changes. AFPC/JA further states that concerning the first changed factors, as stated above, the Board has granted several USUHS Class of 1987 members constructive credit based on miscounseling/presumptive evidence of miscounseling and/or parity within their peer group. In requesting reconsideration, applicant further contends that despite his evidence that...
No objection would be offered to a correction submitted an election changing coverage new spouse within the time frame Technical Branch Retired Pay Operations I *- U I-- D E P A R T M E N T OF T H E A I R F O R C E H E A D Q U A R T E R S AIR FORCE P E R S O N N E L C E N T E R R A N D O L P H AIR FORCE B A S E T E X A S MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR FROM: HQ AFPWDPPTR 550 C Street West Ste 11 Randolph AFB TX 78150-471 3 SUBJECT: Application for Correction of Military Records Reference: f Requested...
The applicant states that at the time of his request to separate under the SSB program, only the SSB program allowed entrance into an active reserve status, without forfeiting any separation bonus. In accordance with the law at the time, VSI payments were recouped when Reserve pay was received; however, SSB payments were not. Further, since the recouped SSB funds could not be applied to out-year VSI payments, the Air Force effectively would be required to pay both SSB and VSI to...
Action officers at AFPC do not make colonels’ assignments – they’re made by general officers. A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and states the senior rater supports changing his promotion recommendation to a “Promote,” and provides a new, signed PRF for the board. Applicant's complete response, with...
Action officers at AFPC do not make colonels’ assignments – they’re made by general officers. A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and states the senior rater supports changing his promotion recommendation to a “Promote,” and provides a new, signed PRF for the board. Applicant's complete response, with...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 97-02646 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be promoted to the grade of captain. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant's military records, are contained in the letter...
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 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.
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Director of Personnel Program Management, HQ ARPC/DPJA, reviewed this application and states that at the present time, under the ROPMA, they do not have the authority to hold SSBs for PV promotions. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, to include that the...
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.
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant reviewed this application and noted that the applicant was seen by mental health providers shortly after starting basic training and was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder which interfered with her military duties/training and she was discharged because of the medical condition interfering with her training. A complete copy of the DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit...
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.
He knows that one of these individuals was selected for promotion. Upon realizing this error, the Air Force canceled the individual’s promotion due to the fact that his total score was below the promotion cutoff of his correct AFSC (2A372); however, this individual’s promotion was reinstated through the appeal process. However, he has not provided sufficient evidence to persuade us that he was denied fair and equitable consideration for promotion or that his records were in error at the...
On 31 May 90, applicant was found guilty by his commander who imposed the following punishment: Reduction from the grade of sergeant to the grade of airman first class, forfeiture of $560 pay a month for two months, and 30 days’ correctional custody. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Military Personnel Management Specialist, AFPC/DPPRS, also reviewed this application and indicated that this case has been reviewed and the discharge was consistent with...
Available records reflect that the applicant was retired from the Air Force Reserve on 16 December 1996 by reason of medical disqualification, in the grade of Technical Sergeant (E-6). However, we do not find evidence that the applicant’s commander approved a recommendation for promotion. Exhibit H. Medical Records.
If the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR) determines that the applicant was demoted voluntarily (without cause) to enter active duty, their advice would be for the AFBCMR to advance the applicant to the rank of TSgt at the 30-year point. Exhibit B. CHARLENE M. BRADLEY Panel Chair AFBCMR 97-02874 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...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Military Personnel Division, Air Force Reserve Command, HQ AFRC/DPM, states that there was no medical documentation provided for Headquarters Air Force Reserve Command, Surgeon General (HQ AFRC/SGPS) to review previously nor with this request for correction of military records which supports applicant’s claim that his back problems are associated with his duty in Germany. The Consultant...