RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-03507 INDEX CODE: 110 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING: YES The deceased former service member’s widow, herein after known as applicant, requests that her deceased husband’s 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...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-03508 INDEX CODE 106.00 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: Yes _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His 1998 bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to general. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant's military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-03510 INDEX CODE: 128.10 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be granted a waiver of a Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance (SGLI) debt in the amount of $359.00. After reviewing the evidence of record, we believe that the debt he incurred for payments of SGLI was unjust. VAUGHN E....
The applicant did not identify any specific errors in the discharge processing nor provide facts that warrant an upgrade of his discharge he received. We also find insufficient evidence to warrant a recommendation that the discharge be upgraded on the basis of clemency. Exhibit B.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-03512 INDEX CODE: A61.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. In support of his appeal, the applicant provided several post-service letters. 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 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 latest 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.
A copy of the Air Force evaluation, with attachment, is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 25 January 1999 for review and response. Had the applicant’s orderly room been responsive within a reasonable period of time, and the award placed in official channels, applicant's score for selection in his Controlled Air Force...
Had he properly reviewed his OPBs prior to either of his BPZ considerations, his record would have been accurate for his P0598B in-the-promotion zone consideration. A complete copy of the DPPPA evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant indicated that he believes he is deserving of promotion and he is simply requesting that he be considered for promotion with accurate...
The applicant states that it was never his intention to request a change in his classification from “Evader” to “P.O.W.”, he is requesting that Evaders receive the same Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) benefits as P.O.Ws. Also, this Board cannot change the law governing the status of Evaders, Escapees, Internees and P.O.Ws. Exhibit F. Counsel’s Letter, dated 26 May 99.
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.
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant's military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Deputy Staff Judge Advocate, AFOATS/JA, reviewed the application and states that if there was an error, it was not an error initiated by...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-03540 INDEX CODE 107.00 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His DD Form 214 reflect receipt of the Air Force Outstanding Unit Award with “V” (AFOUA/V) Device [administratively granted - see below] and the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal (AFEM). Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E. On...
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 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 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.
(A) The contested OPR closing 30 January 1997 was written after her commander was investigated. After reviewing the evidence of record, we believe the OPR closing 18 June 1997 is not an accurate assessment of the applicant’s performance. MARTHA MAUST Panel Chair MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR) FROM: SAF/MIB SUBJECT: AFBCMR Case of I have carefully considered all the circumstances of this case, including the rational of 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). 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.
AFBCMR 98-03556 INDEX CODE: 112.00 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...
Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E. ___________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. She was not discharged on 5 February 1995, but on that date, she was released from active duty and transferred to the Reserve of the Air Force, with a Reserve Obligation Termination Date of 5 February 1998. b. She was not discharged on 5 February 1995, but on that date, she was released from active duty and transferred to the Reserve of the Air...
On 5 April 1990, applicant was appointed a 2nd Lieutenant, Medical Corp (MC), Reserve of the Air Force and entered an Air Force Health Professions Scholarship Program/Financial Assistance Program (AFHPSP/FAP) contract in which she agreed to serve on active duty for a specific period of time in exchange for the Air Force paying her educational expenses while in medical school. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered this...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-03569 INDEX CODE: 131.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be considered for promotion to the grade of major by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for the CY96A (4 Mar 96) Major Selection Board (P0496A), with inclusion of the corrected Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) provided; the citations...
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: While completing the required documents to be released from active duty in 1997, she was unaware as to the meaning of “resigning her commission” and being released from active duty. While she was requesting separation from active duty, she completed paperwork for a reserve assignment. Based on the applicant’s...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO: 98-03576 INDEX CODE 110.03 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: Yes Applicant requests reinstatement into the Air Force after 29 years. 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).
_________________________________________________________________ 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...
Applicant requested an additional year of unfunded training from 1 Jul 98 to 30 Jun 99 for fellowship training in spine surgery; however, this request was denied by DPAME. Constructive credit is awarded once an individual enters active duty; HPSP graduates can be, and frequently are, deferred from active duty upon completion of medical school to obtain residency training (they enter active duty upon completion of their training program); and, USUHS students contractually must go to an...
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). 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 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.
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...
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). 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 has not filed a timely request Place of enlistment (FOE) is defined as the place where a member was initially...
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. Panel Chairman Attachments: 1. Ltr, AFPC/DPPRS, dtd Oct 18, 99 AFBCMR 99-02398 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...
AFBCMR 99-03305 Index Number 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 applicant has been the victim of either an error or an injustice. Panel Chair Attachment Ltr, AFPC/DPFF, dtd 27 Dec 99 AFBCMR 99-03305 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States...
AFBCMR 99-00003 MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION BEFORE THE AFBCMR SUBJECT: APPLICANT, SSN 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. 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...
In support of his appeal, applicant submits a copy of AETC Form 1431, “Medical Service Grade and Pay Computation Worksheet,” a copy of a letter, dated 21 August 1997, from the U. S. Air Force Vice Chief of Staff stating that there is no relief available from USC Title 37 and that the applicant has support for an early release from the U. S. Air Force Reserve. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Physician Utilization Branch,...
AFBCMR 99-00006 INDEX CODE: 128.00 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 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...
Even though the DMSM citation was not on file for the board, evidence of the decoration was before the board on both the officer selection brief (OSB) and the memorandum from Headquarters AFPC/DPPBR1 (Board Discrepancy Report for Board: PO598B). 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...
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.
In reference to the applicant providing a copy of the aeronautical order changing his aeronautical rating and a summary sheet he contends was faxed to an office at AFPC, they state there is no evidence to show he attempted to communicate with the board president or AFPC/DPPPOO in order to have the information corrected on his OSB; nor does he address his Officer Preselection Brief which he would have received for review approximately 100 days prior to the 1 June 1998 board. A complete copy...
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 applicant has failed to provide any information or support from the rating chain on the contested OER. 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 as for clarification, his request is for the removal of an OER rendered on 14 April 1987 not 14 April 1997. The merits of which seek to overturn the one document the Air Force continues to have on file - 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). Limited Master Personnel Record C. Advisory Opinion D. AFBCMR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinion E. Congressional Ltr w/atch
Effective 18 December 1998, 48 hours after she had reenlisted, paralegals in Zone A and B (2 to 6 years and 6 years to 10 years) were eligible for a reenlistment bonus. She was further informed that while the Reenlistment Section cannot know what will be on the SRB lists, it is and should be their responsibility to explain the SRB facts to all personnel reenlisting. Had the applicant been counseled concerning the release of a new Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) listing in December and...
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. The HQ USAF/JAG also states “it would be inappropriate for the Board to draw any inferences from the Baker settlement.” If strong legal grounds supported the Air Force position, he does not believe the Air Force would have corrected the 83 records in question and made the monetary settlement that it did. With...
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON, D.C. Office of the Assistant Secretary AFBCMR 99-00025 k MAR 5 19% MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, Uited States Code and AFI 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: records of the Department of the Air Force relating t e corrected to show...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-00027 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Officer Selection Briefs (OSBs) prepared for consideration by the CY97C (P0597C) and CY98B (P0598B) Lieutenant Colonel Selection Boards, which convened on 21 Jul 97 and 1 Jun 98, be corrected; and, he be given Special Selection Board (SSB)...
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). 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 facts and opinions stated in the advisory opinion appear to be based on the available...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-00030 INDEX CODE: 112.00 COUNSEL: BEN KEELEY HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of “2B” be upgraded to allow him the opportunity to reenlist in the US Army. A complete copy of the AFDRB brief is attached at Exhibit C and the letter from the Air Force is attached at...