The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied applicant's request on 16 September 1996. In accordance with policy, the application was forwarded to this Board for further consideration (Exhibit C). 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.
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.
DPPPE noted the applicant’s allegation that his management level had a practice of giving DPs to officers with weaker records, while making the officers with stronger records compete with a Promote recommendation, and that he provided a letter from a senior rater to support this. In DPPP’s view, based on the lack of evidence provided, their recommendation of denial is appropriate and SSB consideration is not appropriate. Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit...
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). 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 explains that he was unaware of the problem with the conduct of the SERB, and the Air Force’s settlement in the Baker case until reading about it in the 14 September 1998 Air Force Times article. Thus, the Board would have to reach the conclusion that the Air Force settled the Baker case because the Charge was flawed and consequently, applicant’s selection for early retirement constituted an error or injustice. A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit...
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). The facts and opinions stated in the advisory opinion appear to be based on the evidence of record and have not been rebutted by applicant.
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant/counsel for review and response (Exhibit D). The Board staff is directed to inform applicant of this decision.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-00053 INDEX NUMBER: 107.00 HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His DD Form 214, Report of Separation from the Armed Forces of the United States, be revised to reflect that he was awarded the Good Conduct Medal. By letter, dated 19 May 1999, applicant amended his request to include that his DD Form 214 also...
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 or counsel.
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON, DC FEB 1 8 1999 Office of the Assistant Secretary AFBCMR 9 9 - 0 0 0 5 8 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code and Air Force Instruction 36-2603, and having assured compliance with the provisions of the above regulation, the decision of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records is announced, and it is directed that: nt of the Air The pertinen be corrected to Force relating...
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.
All that is available is a copy of his Selective Service System Registration Card and a partial roster indicating he was given a UOTHC discharge (Homosexual) on 7 August 1954. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Military Personnel Management Specialist, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, reviewed this appeal and provides his rationale for recommending that the applicant’s request for an upgraded discharge be denied. THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ Panel...
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 he is not arguing whether the report should have been generated; to him that is a moot point. After reviewing the evidence of record, we are persuaded that the contested report is not an accurate assessment of applicant’s performance. Exhibit C....
INDEX CODE: 121.03 AFBCMR 99-00064 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 appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). The facts and opinions stated in the advisory opinion appear to be based on the evidence of record and have not been rebutted by applicant.
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). The Board staff is directed to inform applicant of this decision.
AFBCMR 99-00071 MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION BEFORE THE AFBCMR SUBJECT: 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. Panel Chair Attachments: 1. JOHN J. D’ORAZIO Chief Examiner Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records
dnJ+ j- Mu Panel Chairman Attachment Ltr, ARPC/DP, dtd 2 Feb 99 DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON, D.C. Office of the Assistant Secretary AFBCMR 99-00079 MAR 5 19% MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United 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: ds of the Department of...
AFBCMR 99-00083 INDEX CODE: 128.00 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 is directed that: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to , be corrected to show that his spouse , son and daughter were...
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). 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 99-00092 INDEX CODE: 128.00 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 is directed that: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to , be corrected to show that: a. Her temporary duty (TDY) 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.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-00094 137.02 (Deceased) COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: Yes _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her late husband’s records be corrected to show he elected spouse only coverage in the Reserve Component Survivor Benefit Plan (RCSBP) when he was first eligible. A copy of the complete Air Force evaluation, with attachment, is...
Furthermore, any endorsing official in the chain of command could have recommended upgrade to the MSM at the time the AFCM was being processed. A complete copy of the DPPPR evaluation is at Exhibit B. Exhibit D. Letter, applicant dated 8 Apr 99.
AFBCMR 99-00096 MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION BEFORE THE AFBCMR SUBJECT: SSAN: 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...
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.
In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a letter from HQ Air Force Reserve Command (AFRC) requesting award of AFSC 46PX, dated XX Nov 98; his certification as a psychiatric and mental health nurse by the American Nurses Credentialing Center from X Sep 94 to XX Aug 99; and a message from AFRC, dated XX Oct 98 (Exhibit A). While the applicant may have performed duties as a mental health nurse, he never possessed that AFSC during any of the promotion boards that considered him. ...
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 facts and opinions stated in the advisory opinion appear to be based on the evidence of record and have not been rebutted by applicant. Available Master Personnel Records C. Advisory Opinion D. SAF/MIBR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinion
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.
As to his conviction for possession of marijuana, he was convicted based on the testimony of OSI agents and an expert witness who identified the seized substance was marijuana. The documents requested were statements of the witness who testified against him as to the specification of using marijuana. The documents requested were statements of the witness who testified against him for the specification of using marijuana.
The appropriate Air Force office 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). 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 99-00112 INDEX CODE: 137.04 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 is directed that: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to , be corrected to show that on 13 June 1998, he elected former...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-00116 INDEX CODE: 111.01 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period 1 Sep 96 through 1 Jul 97 be declared void and removed from his records. While the applicant provided statements from individuals outside the rating chain, we are not persuaded...
HQ AFPC/DPAOM agrees the applicant may have missed the OSA assignment boards in his transitions between Norton, March, and Randolph; however, those boards were discontinued while the applicant was at Randolph. Based upon that fact, HQ AFPC/DPAOM believes the applicant could have applied for his MWS at any time prior to or during his tour at Randolph. Applicant contends that due to several base closures, he got lost in the transition from OSA to MWS and spent too much time in OSA is duly noted.
INDEX CODE: 128.02 AFBCMR 99-00118 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 forth in...
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.
In support of his request, applicant provided a letter from the Defense Finance and Accounting Service-Denver Center concerning a debt in the amount of $476.38 for drills performed on January 10 and 11, 1998, after his separation. ___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Director of Personnel Program Management, ARPC/DPAR, reviewed this application and recommended denial, stating there is no provision of law that permits members to...
In this regard, it appears that the applicant reenlisted early based on the advice of his Military Personnel Flight even though he still had approximately 30 days remaining on his enlistment. Exhibit B. RICHARD A. PETERSON Panel Chair AFBCMR 99-00121 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed...
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 and counsel for review and response (Exhibit D). The facts and opinions stated in the advisory opinion appear to be based on the evidence of record and have not been rebutted by applicant.
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). After careful consideration of applicant's request and the available evidence of record, we find insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant corrective action.
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinions were forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). The facts and opinions stated in the advisory opinion appears 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: 99-00134 INDEX CODE: 112.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His enlistment grade be changed from senior airman (E-4) to his previous grade of staff sergeant (E-5), with a date of rank of 1 Sep 95. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was miscounseled on his enlistment options for the Regular Air Force and as a result, he lost a stripe and active duty time. 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). 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.
AFBCMR 99-00137 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 of Staff signed by...
The applicant filed a similar appeal under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, which was denied by the Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAB). _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Promotion, Evaluation and Recognition Division, AFPC/DPPP, reviewed this application and states that when requesting an entire report be voided, the applicant must take into consideration that...
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). 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.