INDEX CODE: 112.05, 112.03 AFBCMR 99-00490 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...
Therefore, as the WD AGO Form 53-55 is an obsolete Army form, we recommend a DD Form 215 be issued reflecting his time as a POW for the period 6 June to 1 September 1944. The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 17 Feb 99, w/atchs. WAYNE R. GRACIE Panel Chair AFBCMR 99-00492 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...
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 99-00498 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 accompanying...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-00500 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Applicant, the brother of a deceased former service member, requests removal of the statement “100% pilot error” from the U. S. Army Air Forces Report of Aircraft Accident which occurred on 26 May 1943. A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy 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). 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.
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. His reenlistment executed on 12 February 1999 for a period of four years be, and hereby is, declared void. He was honorably discharged effective 14 January 1999, rather than 11 February 1999, and reenlisted in the Regular Air Force on 15 January 1999, rather than...
INDEX CODE: 121 AFBCMR 99-00506 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. He was charged twelve (12) days of...
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 citation for the MSM covering the period 1 March 1994 to 27 July 1998 at Robins AFB, GA, be removed and replaced with the citation for the MSM covering the period 1 March 1994 to 27 July 1996 at Robins AFB, GA, and the awarding date be changed so that it can be included in her records for consideration for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel (LTC) by Special Selection Board (SSB) for the Calendar Year 1997C (CY97C) LTC Board. However, the basic MSM citation, which was filed in...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Director of Personnel Program Management, HQ ARPC/DP, 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 attached...
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's requests 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.
AFBCMR 99-00520 INDEX CODE: 112.00 MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION BEFORE THE AFBCMR SUBJECT: 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...
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’s counsel 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 99-00523 MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION BEFORE THE AFBCMR SUBJECT: SSAN: 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...
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Promotion, Evaluation and Recognition Division, Directorate of Personnel Program Management, HQ AFPC/DPPP, reviewed this application and states that the applicant contends he completed all requirements for award of his masters degree in June 1996, however, the school lost his thesis. HQ AFPC/DPAPS1 confirmed the duty title entry should have been, “Environmental Program Manager” based on the OPR filed in his...
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). 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.
As a result Wing/CC indorsement will not occur.” All EPRs on a Chief Master Sergeant (CMSgt), Senior Master Sergeant (SMSgt), and MSgt on active duty become a matter of record when the Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC) files the original (or certified copy) in the member’s senior noncommissioned officer selection folder (SNCOSF). A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section Enlisted Promotion & Military Testing Branch, HQ...
AFBCMR 99-00534 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 accompanying...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-00537 INDEX CODE: 111.01 COUNSEL: ANTHONY W. WALLUK HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Letter of Reprimand (LOR), dated 8 Aug 96, be voided from his records and that any reference to the reprimand be expunged from his records. Counsel indicated that the LOR went away after the applicant was promoted to...
Years later he read the citation and noticed that it indicates “Citation to Accompany the Award of the Meritorious Service Medal” for the period in question. We cannot speculate as to why the citation copy the applicant has reflects award of the MSM when all official documentation in his available military records indicates he received the AFCM. The applicant’s submission does not provide sufficiently persuasive evidence substantiating his contention that he should have received the MSM...
AFBCMR 99-00541 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 accompanying...
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.
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Mil Personnel Mgt Specialist, Separations Branch, AFPC/DPPRS, reviewed the application and states that based on the information submitted in the case and considering the offenses that caused the applicant to be given a UOTHC discharge, they would have no objection to an upgrade of his discharge to an under honorable conditions (general) discharge. Considered alone, we conclude the 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 facts and opinions stated in the advisory opinion appear to be based on the evidence of record and have not been rebutted by applicant.
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Promotion, Evaluation and Recognition Division, Directorate of Personnel Program Management, HQ AFPC/DPPP, reviewed this application and states that the rater of the EPR contends he attempted to submit a reaccomplished version of the EPR on 4 November 1996, but discovered the contested EPR had already became a matter of record. A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force...
On 30 Apr 98, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was recommending that the applicant be discharged for failure to adapt to the military environment. A complete copy of the DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C. The Special Actions Section, AFPC/DPPAES, indicated that they conducted a review of the applicant’s case file and determined that the RE code of 2C was correct (Exhibit D). As a result, he believes that he is being punished by not ever being allowed to enlist in the 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.
The principle 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. For the public policy reasons discussed above, they believe the Board should not permit an out-of-court settlement agreement to be used as evidence the applicant was not fairly considered by the FY94B SERB. The fact is, applicant’s selection by the FY94B SERB did not constitute an error or injustice...
In support of his appeal, applicant provided copies of the contested report, a performance feedback worksheet received during the contested rating period, two prior evaluations and a subsequent evaluation, and a supporting statement from the rater on the contested report. DPPP stated that even though the EPR was written some 11 months after the closeout of the report, nothing is provided by the applicant or the evaluators to demonstrate that the comments contained in the EPR are inaccurate....
In reference to the applicant contending her rater did not directly supervise her for the number of days indicated on the report (140), Air Force policy, AFI 36-2403, paragraph 4.3.9.2, states that 120 days’ supervision are required before accomplishing an EPR, and only TDY or leave periods of 30 consecutive days or more are deducted from the number of days supervision. Therefore, based on the lack of evidence provided, they recommend denial of applicant’s request. Her EPR was written...
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 advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (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. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.
AFBCMR 99-00571 INDEX CODE: 112.01 MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION BEFORE THE AFBCMR SUBJECT: 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...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO: 99-00572 (Cs#2) INDEX CODE 110.00 131.09 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: nO Applicant requests that her DD Form 214 reflect a discharge grade of staff sergeant. 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...
AFBCMR 99-00573 INDEX CODE: 131.01 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. The Promotion Recommendation...
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: 99-00579 INDEX CODE: 107.00 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No Applicant requests that his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, Block 13, be corrected to reflect the Air Force Commendation Medal, First Oak Leaf Cluster (AFCM, 1OLC), Air Force Overseas Short Tour Ribbon, and Air Force Outstanding Unit Award, Second Oak Leaf Cluster (AFOUA, 2OLC). 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.
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 applicant has been advised through his servicing Military Personnel Flight (MPF) that he was not eligible to be promoted to airman until 11 February 1999, the day following the suspended discharge and will not be eligible for promotion to A1C until 11 December 1999 upon completion of the required 10 months (TIG) provided he...
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). Accordingly, applicant's request is denied.
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.
AFBCMR 99-00592 MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION BEFORE THE AFBCMR SUBJECT: 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 signed by...
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.
INDEX CODE: 121.03 AFBCMR 99-00594 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...
AFBCMR 99-00595 INDEX CODE: 112.00 MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION BEFORE THE AFBCMR SUBJECT: 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...
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 99-00602 INDEX CODE: 112.07 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 he was honorably discharged on 15 May...