INDEX CODE: 102.05, 131.09 AFBCMR 99-00872 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...
AFBCMR 99-00873 INDEX CODE:137.04 MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION BEFORE THE AFBCMR SUBJECT: APPLICANT 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 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 Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied applicant's request for an upgraded discharge and RE code on 26 May 1999 (Exhibit C). The AFDRB Brief was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). After careful consideration of applicant's request and the available evidence of record, we find insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant corrective action.
The appropriate Air Force 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.
Applicant's submission is at Exhibit A. Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided an investigative report which is attached at Exhibit C. The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit D). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit E). After careful consideration of applicant's...
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.
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 7 Jun 90 in the grade of airman basic for a period of 4 years. In a legal review of the discharge case file, the Staff Judge Advocate recommended that the discharge authority direct the applicant be discharged with a general discharge. On 12 Nov 98, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied the applicant’s request for upgrade of her...
________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: When he was awarded the National Safety Council’s President’s Medal in Nov 55 by the general officer for whom he worked, he was told that he would receive the Soldier’s Medal (the Airman’s Medal was not established until 1960). ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Awards & Decorations Section, AFPC/DPPPR, reviewed this application and...
INDEX CODE 112.07 AFBCMR 99-00901 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...
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Since he flew with the same aircrew for 28 missions and was on the 17 February 1945 mission for which the navigator of his aircrew was awarded the DFC through the correction of record process, he should be awarded the DFC. 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 in his opinion all ten aircrew members exhibited heroic and...
AFBCMR 99-00903 INDEX CODE: 112.02 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 B). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit C). Applicant’s response to the advisory opinion is at Exhibit D. After careful consideration of applicant's request and the available evidence of record, we find insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant corrective action.
Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the Brief prepared by the Examiner for the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) (Exhibit C). _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence...
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.
On 17 Sep 98, applicant was notified by his commander that she was recommending that he be discharged from the Air Force for fraudulent entry. The records indicate the applicant’s military service was properly reviewed and appropriate action was taken. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Special Programs & BCMR Manager, AFPC/DPPAES, also reviewed this application and indicated that a review of the applicant’s case file was conducted and the RE code is...
The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied applicant's request on 16 June 1999. 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.
Panel Chair Attachments: 1. Ltr, BCMR Med Consultant, dtd May 21, 99 2. Ltr, AFPC/DPPAE, dtd Aug 6, 99 w/atchs AFBCMR 99-00920 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: The pertinent military records of the...
Had the applicant completed training 22 days early, his ADSC would have reflected his actual graduation date and not the “planned” date. Second, there is an officer in his squadron who was delayed approximately 30 days due to the same maintenance problems at Randolph PIT and, without request, had his ADSC reflect his earlier planned graduation date. He also does not recall SRA R” counseling him that if he were delayed due to reasons beyond his control, in his case maintenance problems,...
His departure date of 15 Sep 98 was correctly used, as he was still assigned to the unit at McGuire at that time. Current Air Force promotion policy dictates that before a decoration is credited for a specific promotion cycle, the closeout date of the decoration must be on or before the promotion eligibility cutoff date (PECD), and the date of the DÉCOR-6 must be before the date of selections for the cycle in question. It is further recommended that he be provided...
AFBCMR 99-00932 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...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-00938 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. The Board recommended an undesirable discharge. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-00944 INDEX CODE: 111.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) he has provided, rendered for the period 2 Jul 95 through 27 Nov 95, be added to his official personnel record. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE...
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided an 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.
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). Members of the Board Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Mr. Patrick R. Wheeler, and Ms. Rita J. Maldonado considered this application on 30 September 1999 in accordance with the provisions of Air Force Instruction 36-2603, and the governing statute, 10, U.S.C.
The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied applicant’ request on 12 May 1999. The AFDRB Brief was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). After careful consideration of applicant's request and the available evidence of record, we find insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant corrective action.
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states that at his reenlistment briefing on 11 January 1999, he signed a document, in good faith, indicating his intent to reenlist, after being briefed that he was to receive a SRB of 1.5. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD...
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.
AFI 36-2107 clearly states an ADSC is incurred when training is complete. Had the applicant completed training 22 days early, his ADSC would have reflected his actual graduation date and not the “planned” date. Exhibit B.
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). Applicant's response to the advisory opinion is at Exhibit E. After careful consideration of applicant's request and the available evidence of record, we find insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant corrective action.
The rater stated she supervised the applicant from April 1997 to 13 November 1997. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D). CHARLENE M. BRADLEY Panel Chair AFBCMR 99-00974 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 that: The pertinent military records of 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). Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-00977 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 2X be changed to allow eligibility to enlist in the Air National Guard or Air Force Reserves. After 15 years of active duty commitment, he would like to continue giving to his country as...
AFBCMR 99-00978 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.
Normally, when the carrier arrives at destination, they contact the destination transportation office who coordinate the delivery with the military member. According to JPPSO/XO, the applicant’s shipment exceeded the prescribed weight allowance as evidence by two sets of weight tickets, one at origin and one at destination. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 16 Nov 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). 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.
Panel Chair Attachment: Ltr, AFPC/DPPPAB, dtd May 1, 2000, w/Atch AFBCMR 99-00986 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: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be...
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided an 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.
On 25 March 1999, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied an application submitted by applicant requesting an upgrade of his discharge to honorable, a change of reason for discharge, and a change of his RE Code (See AFDRB Hearing Record at Exhibit C). A copy of the AFDRB Hearing Record 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...
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 facts and opinions stated in the advisory opinion appear to be based on the evidence of record and have not been rebutted by applicant. Members of the Board Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, and Mr. Patrick R. Wheeler considered this application on 24 August 1999 in accordance with the provisions of Air Force...
Therefore, the applicant’s ADSC in the PDS should reflect a date of 20 July 2002. While they do not support the applicant’s request to change his ADSC to 26 June 2002, they do recommend the ADSC be changed to 20 July 2002 based upon the AF Form 475 (Exhibit C). ___________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that he incurred a...
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 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). Accordingly, applicant's request is denied.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-01014 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: MICHAEL J. CLOONAN HEARING DESIRED: NO Applicant requests that his discharge be upgraded to honorable. 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...
In their advisory (Exhibit B), the Joint Personal Property Shipping Office (JPPSO) recommends the applicant’s HHG weight be further reduced to 19,980, which would leave 2,480 over the maximum JFTR allowance. Therefore, we recommend that his records be corrected to reflect that his HHG were not overweight and, as a result, he did not incur a debt. Letter, JPPSO, dated 25 May 99, w/atchs.
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.