However, anyone reviewing the applicant’s record of trial can easily identify the victims in this case to be the airmen targeted by the applicant and the United States Air Force. In JAJM’s view, the applicant’s lack of judgment, self-discipline and respect for the military’s code of conduct could only have led to contempt from those enlisted members, and any other enlisted personnel who became aware of the applicant’s actions. ...
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 opinions appear to be based on the evidence of record and have not been rebutted by applicant. 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: 97-02960 (Case 2) INDEX CODE: 131.01 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 CY94A (22 Aug 94) Major Board (P0494A), with a corrected officer selection record (OSR). As to the MSM, he feels the MSM should...
On 19 May 97, applicant was advised of her commander’s intent to impose nonjudicial punishment upon her under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for her alleged misconduct in violation of Article 134 for the following offense: at or near McGuire AFB, on or about 29 Apr 97, being disorderly in that she engaged in a verbal tirade and threw a handful of dental instruments out a doorway. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On...
A complete copy of the Report of Proceedings is attached at Exhibit E. In a letter dated 22 August 1998, applicant stated the following: “On my DD214 it states the reason for my discharge was due to a Court Martial. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force and adopt their rationale as the basis for the conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or...
A complete copy of the DPPPEB evaluation is at Exhibit C. The Appeals and SSB Branch, AFPC/DPPPA, reviewed this application and recommended denial. DPPPA indicated they concurred with AFPC/DPPPEB that the applicant has failed to provide evidence necessary to support his claims of error in his appeal. A complete copy of the JA evaluation is at Exhibit F. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In his response, counsel...
There are no provisions of law to allow payment of retired pay unless the member has met all requirements to receive such pay. And, finally, it is important to note that numerous prior military personnel have been granted VA disability compensation entitlement following receipt of either Voluntary Separation Incentive (VSI) or SSB separation pay. While the applicant has not provided evidence that Air Force officials miscounseled him, in view of the short period of time needed to become...
Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit H. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: In earlier findings, we determined that there was insufficient evidence to warrant any corrective action regarding the applicant’s request that the AF Form 418 be declared void and removed from his records. Reenlistment in the Air Force is a privilege and not a right. Only those individuals who consistently demonstrate the qualities necessary for...
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 counsel and the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). If applicant submits documentation at a later time, we will reconsider his case at that time.
A complete copy of the DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In her response, the applicant indicated that she never served in Italy as indicated in Medical Consultant’s advisory. According to the Medical Consultant, the applicant’s records did not specifically state where her temporary duties (TDYs) were served other than noting she was assigned to Combined Task Force 6 at one point,...
_________________________________________________________________ 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 Joint...
Had an MEB been initiated and presented to the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) during the time frame just prior to his release, the Board would have found him unfit for continued military service and recommended he be discharged with severance pay with a 20% disability rating. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. The Chief, Claims Branch, Directorate of Debt and Claims Management, DFAS-DE/FYCC, states that after a thorough review of the...
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states that an injustice exists; the request to fix the law is in process, according to ARPC. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT,...
He was not absent without leave (AWOL) [the basis for the Article 15] because he had a third amended order, dated 9 January 1997, that extended his TDY at Wilford Hall Medical Center (WHMC), Lackland AFB, for a total of 176 days, and was given verbal authorization to remain TDY after his medical evaluation board (MEB) was concluded. A copy of the complete Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit C. The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, evaluated the appeal and stated that the...
After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that the two Officer Performance Reports (OPRs), closing 5 July 1989 and 5 July 1990 should be voided and removed from his records; the Overseas Duty History portion of the Officer Selection Brief (OSB) should be changed; or, that a signed copy of the citation of the Air Force Achievement Medal (AFAM) should be inserted into the OSR. Although the overseas duty history was not reflected on the...
INDEX CODE: 112.05, 112.08 AFBCMR 97-03224 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...
_________________________________________________________________ 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 Field...
She be retroactive promoted to the grade of 0-4 (major), which should have occurred during the Fiscal Year 1996 (FY96) Reserve of the Air Force Line/Health Professionals Board, that convened at Headquarters Air Reserve Personnel Center (HQ ARPC) on 6 - 10 March 1995. The investigation did in fact conclude and recommend in your favor.” In support of the appeal, applicant submits HQ ARPC/IG Letter, Request for TIG investigation, and Investigating Officer’s Reports. While this Board agrees...
On 29 June 1998, the applicant submitted a request for reconsideration of the Board’s decision through his Congressman (Exhibit F). Accordingly, his request for reconsideration was denied (Exhibit G). Exhibit G. Letter from SAF/LLI to C/M McNulty, dated 3 Sep 98.
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 appear to be based on the evidence of record and have not been rebutted by applicant.
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: At the time the events under review commenced, the applicant was serving on active duty in the grade of lieutenant colonel, with a date of rank of 1 January 1992. The Personnel Council, on behalf of the Secretary, determined that the applicant had not served satisfactorily in the grade of lieutenant colonel and, therefore, directed retirement in the grade of major. The evidence of record reflects that,...
(Exhibit C) 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's response to the advisory opinions is at Exhibit F. 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.
ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 97-03390 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: STEPHEN J. DUNN HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ RESUME OF CASE On 21 April 1998, the Board considered and denied applicant's 11 July 1997 application requesting that (1) her uncharacterized discharge be changed to a medical discharge; (2) a referral to a Physical Evaluation Board...
A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, Enlisted Promotion and Military Testing Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, states that the applicant was demoted from staff sergeant to senior airman effective and with a date of rank of 3 June 1994 in accordance with AFR 39-30 for failure to maintain weight within Air Force standards. A copy of the Air Force evaluation, with attachment, is attached at Exhibit E. The Chief, Retirements Branch, HQ...
His corrected record receive supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of master sergeant (E-7) for cycle 97E7. He is asking the Board to correct the injustice that was done on his last duty station. Per message, dated 29 Sep 97, officials at the Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC), Promotion Management Section, Randolph AFB, Texas, informed the applicant that the documentation provided did not clearly establish that a decoration recommendation was placed into official channels prior...
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The AFBCMR Medical Consultant reviewed the appeal and indicates that the applicant's evaluation at WPAFB in September is specific in dating onset of his bipolar disorder to August 1996, yet his medical records show that he was referred to mental health services on 19 July 1996 after being identified in an alcohol incident the previous week, well before the stated onset of his disorder. A copy of the complete Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. 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). 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 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 acknowledged receipt of the Letter of Notification on 19 September 1994 and on 20 September 1994 stated that she had been notified of the recommendation for discharge action for a Personality Disorder and of the specific basis of the proposed discharge. Applicant was discharged from the Regular Air Force on 17 October 1994 under the provisions of AFI 36-3208 (Personality Disorder) with an honorable discharge. A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Retirements Branch, Directorate of Personnel Program Mgmt, AFPC/DPPRR, reviewed the application and states that an audit confirmed member had accumulated 19 years, 5 months, and 11 days for active duty credit; therefore, he did not have the required 20 years and 1 day required for service retirement eligibility. If he understands correctly what that block means, it means he has 240 months of...
Interestingly, the summary of applicant’s hospitalization in 1981 that resulted in his being placed on that medication describes his appearance as “mildly obese” and further review of records shows that his enlistment physical examination in Feb 71 recorded his weight at 213 pounds, well over weight standards at the time he was allowed to join the Air Force. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed...
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant’s request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). Contrary to what the applicant states in her request, the "2Q" code was not assigned simply to prevent her immediate reenlistment, but rather to reflect the fact that she was separated with an unfitting medical condition under provisions of AFR 35-4 and the disability evaluation sys- tem. Page 2 AFBCMR Case #...
The Board noted the supportive statement from the rater of the contested report; however, the Board did not believe it supported a finding that the contested report was in error or unjust (Exhibits A through E). _________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD: A majority of the Board finds insufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommends the application be denied. JOE G. LINEBERGER Director Air Force Review Boards Agency AFBCMR...
On 3 November 1994, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied applicant's request to upgrade his discharge to honorable (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). Discussion: The record of trial makes it clear that the applicant dishonorably failed to pay the five debts as alleged in the charge and five specifications. It would appear that the defense counsel advised the applicant to plead guilty because the evidence against him was overwhelming.
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (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. Requested Action: hi8 retired pay be cor retired list.
In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a personal statement, copies of his transcript, enlistment documents, extracts from 10 USC 2107, an Air Force Times article, and other documents associated with the matter under review. DPPRR indicated that after a review of the applicant's military service record, they were unable to establish the fact that he was enlisted in the Army Reserve to attend the ROTC program at Middle Tennessee State University. We took notice of the applicant's...
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Applicant entered active duty on 15 Aug 66. A) provided a statement to the DVA; however, he does not mention any enemy-action injury to the applicant. On 11 Mar 97, his case was forwarded to the PH Review Board where it was determined that his medical documentation did not support his claim of injury.
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: 97-03707 INDEX CODE: 131.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be considered for promotion to the Reserve grade of lieutenant colonel by Special Selection Board (SSB) for the Fiscal Year 1998 (FY98) Air...
His statement and documentary evidence submitted in support of his request for reconsideration is included as Exhibit BB. However, the applicant has provided new evidence to further substantiate his claim of no prior knowledge of the three-year ADSC for KC-135 training. This letter, coupled with the lack of supporting documentation (i.e., no AF Form 63), warrants a favorable reconsideration by the AFBCMR (Exhibit CC).
Inasmuch as the above corrections were accomplished subsequent to his consideration for promotion by the CY97B and CY97E Lieutenant Colonel Selection Boards, we recommend that the applicant’s corrected record be reviewed when he is considered for promotion by an SSB. It is further recommended that he be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by a Special Selection Board for the CY 97B (2 June 1997) Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, and for any subsequent board for...
The do not recommend the applicant’s elimination from SUNT be removed from his record. However, this information should have been reflected in a TR prepared by the training squadron at Randolph AFB, not in the TR from CNATRA. A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit G. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and states that based upon the...
The bottom line of these various documents apparently is that applicant's 1993 "In Line of Duty" (LOD) injury did not result in disability or warrant disability processing and that his February 1995 "EPTS---LOD not applicable" (not LOD) injury resulted in both his disqualification for further Reserve duty and his ineligibility for disability processing, in accordance with the applicable directives [AFI 36-2910 & AFI 36-32121. SGP determined “the [disquallfvmg] medical condition existed...
A complete copy of the HQ AFRC/DPM letter, with attachment, is at Exhibit M. A copy of the HQ AFRC/DPM letter, with attachment, was forwarded to the applicant’s counsel on 23 September 1999 for review and comment within 30 days. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: Inasmuch as the applicant has been afforded due process through a new, appropriately conducted new PDRB, and that this PDRB’s findings with respect to his medical condition...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 97-03791 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be released from his 24-month active duty service commitment (ADSC) he incurred when he was disenrolled from the United States Air Force Academy (USAFA). DPPAES recommends the applicant reimburse the Air Force for the cost of the Academy education...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 97-03807 INDEX CODE: 110.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His date of separation of 16 May 1992 be changed to a later date which would entitle him to the Montgomery GI Bill. Applicant did receive an honorable discharge but only completed 2 years, 11 months and 19 days of active duty. A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit E. The Military...
He also makes numerous other allegations related to his mandatory officer retirement grade determination and that the dates in Blocks #8 and 9 of the Article 15 were predated. AFMPC requested that the applicant provide the appropriate verified documents to confirm his acquisition experience and certification. In regard to applicant’s complaint that the ADC counseled him to accept nonjudicial punishment proceedings under Article 15 otherwise he would have demanded trial by court-martial had...
His name had been removed from the CY94A promotion list by direction of the Secretary of the Air Force (SAF) on 6 July 1996 for dereliction of duties in his attention to a sexual harassment complaint, inappropriate handling of the sexual harassment complaint, and failure to promptly correct the victim’s record to properly reflect her reasons for resigning from the Enlisted Club. Applicant was advised by letter dated 10 February 1995 that the commander of the Air Force , Air Education and...
Applicant's submission is at Exhibit 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’s last available address for review and response (Exhibit D).
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.