Unfortunately, the AF Form 418 denying applicant reenlistment is not on file in his military personnel record. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 16 Oct 98, w/atchs; Letter, dated 2 Oct 98; Statement BARBARA A. WESTGATE Panel Chair AFBCMR 98-00035 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...
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-00067 COUNSEL : HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT: His release from active duty, with the Special Separation Bonus (SSB), be changed to a medical retirement. A copy of the complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. The Chief, USAF Physical Disability Division, HQ AFPC/DPPD, also evaluated the case and verifies that the applicant was never referred to or considered by the Air...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Selection Board Secretariat, HQ AFPC/DPPB, stated they disagree with counsel’s contention that the special selection board (SSB) process is unfair in that the use of benchmark records from the gray zone from the central board creates a higher standard for selection than that for the central board. ), he was otherwise competitive for promotion upon receiving the DP recommendation after his records...
The applicant, while serving in the grade of first lieutenant, was discharged with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge, on 5 December 1997 under the provisions of AFI 36-3207 (Fraudulent entry Into Military Service). _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Personnel Management Specialist, Separations Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, states that this case has been reviewed for separation processing and there are no errors or...
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.
Considered alone, the Board concludes the discharge proceedings were proper and characterization of the discharge was appropriate to the existing circumstances. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that on 2 Nov 49, he was discharged with service characterized as general (under honorable conditions). THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ Panel...
As noted by the Air National Guard (ANG) , in their advisory opinion of 8 Jun 98 (Exhibit C) , applicant's social security number will be corrected upon resolution of his case. 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).
ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-00146 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO __________________________________________________________________ RESUME OF CASE: Applicant submitted an application to the Board dated 13 January 1998. __________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-00172 INDEX NUMBER: 137.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO Applicant requests that his records be corrected to reflect he made a timely election for spouse coverage under the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) following his marriage on 10 July 1993. The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be...
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His Military Record and Report of Separation Certificate of Service does not reflect that he was awarded the WW II Victory Medal or promoted to second lieutenant in Sep 45 and this may have been because the new organization did not act on the approval dated 3 May 45 or the orders were lost or simply did not catch up to his new military base organization. Therefore, the only issue for the Board to...
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 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.
He was hospitalized for 30 days in May 1966 with a diagnosis of Agranulocytosis and he should have received a medical discharge from the Air Force. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that his honorable discharge should be changed to a medical discharge; that he receive the award of the Air Force Good Conduct Medal (AFGCM); that the Report of Medical Examination, Standard Form 88, dated 27 November 1967, should be corrected to...
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the advisory opinions and states please note the following court cases that he believes affect his case. Applicant's complete response, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit E. ________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION The Dir of Personnel...
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.
On 1 May 1995, the applicant’s commander found that he did commit one or more of the offenses alleged and imposed the following punishment: reduction to the grade of senior airman, with a new date of rank of 1 May 1995, and forfeiture of $661.00 pay. The JA then dismissed the case and recommended an Article 15 be done instead. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-00251 INDEX CODES: 131.00, 111.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to reflect the effective date for his promotion to the grade of master sergeant as 1 Apr 96, rather than 1 Nov 97, with back and allowances. DPPPWB believes the applicant needs to provide a copy of the...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-00256 INDEX CODE 136.00 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her time spent on the Temporary Disability Retirement List (TDRL) [1 year, 5 months, 26 days] be credited towards her total active federal military service date (TAFMSD) for retirement purposes. Time spent on the TDRL is considered a...
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-00269 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO FEB I 9 1999 Applicant requests that the DD Form 214, Report of Separation from Active Duty, Block 16b, Related Civilian Occupation and D.O.T. The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C) . Available Master Personnel Records C....
In the applicant’s response to the Air Force evaluations, he requests that the AFBCMR direct his record be corrected to reflect selection for promotion to the grade of Reserve major and lieutenant colonel with reinstatement to active duty. He is currently serving in the grade of lieutenant colonel as a non-extended active duty (non-EAD) reserve officer. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-00289 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His discharge be upgraded from general to honorable. A complete copy of the AFDRB brief is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. ...
Or, in the alternative, He be reinstated to active duty and given “valid” promotion consideration by Special Selection Board (SSB) for the Calendar Year 1991A (CY91A) and CY91B Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Boards (CSBs); i.e., with overall recommendations of “Definitely Promote(DP)” on the Promotion Recommendation Forms (PRFs) and faithfully/realistically replicated competition. A copy of the complete evaluation is at Exhibit E. The Senior Attorney-Advisor, HQ AFPC/JA, provides a...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-00304 INDEX CODE: 131.10, 111.01, 131.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. 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 Staff and adopt their rationale as the basis for our...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-00318 INDEX CODE: 107.00 COUNSEL: WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to reflect award of the Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM). His records did not indicate that he was even eligible to be recommended for a decoration. A complete copy of the...
In support of his appeal, applicant submits Article 15 documentation which was placed in his Noncommissioned Officer (NCO) folder, a request for mitigation of the Article 15, EPRs and response to the referral EPR. AFPC/DPPPAB did not return the application because the applicant does not have evaluator support, as required by AFI 36-2401. The relationship simply did not “detract from the authority of superiors.” Contrary to the language of the Article 15, applicant never served in the...
As for the merits of these claims, in JA’s opinion, the Air Force’s SSB procedure fully comports with the 10 USC 628(a)(2) requirement that an officer’s “record be compared with a sampling of the records of those officers of the same competitive category who were recommended for promotion, and those officers who were not recommended for promotion, by the board that should have considered him.” The burden is on the applicant to prove otherwise, and he has failed to do so. AFPC has provided...
In support of her request, applicant submits a revised application, with a personal statement, copies of the contested OPR, the AFI 36- 2401 application and the decision, a statement from the rater, SAF/IGQ addendum to the USAFE/IG report of investigation, and additional documents associated with the issues cited in her contentions (Exhibit A). DPPPA stated that the applicant received a referral Officer Performance Report (OPR), closing 31 Mar 94, that was subsequently removed by the...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-00356 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The narrative reason for her discharge be changed. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The reasons the applicant believes the records to be in error or unjust and the evidence submitted in support of...
Applicant's submission is at Exhibit A. Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau Investigation (FBI), Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided investigative report which is attached at Exhibit C. be of an 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 complete submission is at Exhibit A. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that her discharge from the Air Force should be changed to a release from active duty. The fact that she was honorably discharged rather than released should not, in and of itself, preclude her from future military service.
The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied the applicant’s request for upgrade of his discharge (Exhibit C). The AFDRB Brief was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). The decision of the AFDRB appears to be based on the evidence of record and has not been rebutted by applicant.
A complete copy of the Record of Proceedings is attached at Exhibit E. In a letter dated 8 January 1999, applicant requests reconsideration and submits a copy of a court order for destruction of arrest records. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance;...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Retiree Services Branch, AFPC/DPPTR, reviewed this application and states Public Law (PL) 99-145 (8 Nov 85 but effective 1 Mar 86) requires a spouse’s written concurrence be obtained whenever a married retiree elects less than full spouse SBP coverage. DPPTR further states that the applicant’s claim that her husband declined SBP coverage because he believed his retired pay would be offset by...
In view of the failure to notify the applicant of his eligibility to be considered for promotion by the boards in question and in view of applicant’s desire to write a letter to the Board president, we recommend that his records, provided he submits a letter to the Board president, be considered for promotion to the Reserve grade of major by a SRB for the FY97 board and by a SSB for the FY98 board. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS...
Without a copy of the orders, they cannot verify that the applicant was recommended for or awarded the Air Medal. A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 29 June 1998 for review and response. After reviewing the limited military personnel records and the applicant’s submission, it appears 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 applicant’s responses are 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 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.
A copy of the complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit G. The Acting Director, Health Services, HQ ARPC/SG, further evaluated the case and indicates that, during the course of his AFRRSP participation, the MIMSO course was changed to Commissioned Officer’s Training, requiring a longer period of time. The applicant has requested that repayment of the AFRRSP stipend be waived. Therefore, we recommend his records be corrected to reflect that, instead of resigning from the...
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit K. The Chief, Evaluation Programs Branch, AFPC/DPPPE, reviewed this application and states that although the applicant has provided support from the senior rater, she provide no support from the MLR president to warrant upgrading the PRF. After reviewing the evidence of record and noting the applicant’s contentions, the majority of the Board is not persuaded that the applicant’s records are either in error or unjust. The...
The board recommended that the applicant be separated from the U. S. Air Force Reserve and issued a General Discharge. By Reserve Order A-087, dated 12 March 1998, applicant was relieved from assignment and discharged from the United States Air Force Reserve effective 26 March 1998 under the provisions of AFI 36-3209 (Misconduct, Commission of a Serious Offense, Drug Abuse) in the grade of master sergeant (E-7). _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE...
The relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the AFBCMR Medical Consultant (Exhibit C). This evaluation resulted in a diagnosis of “Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Anxiety and Depressed Mood.” She was recommended for involuntary separation under provisions of AFI 36-3208, paragraph 5.11.1, Mental Disorders. The Separation Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, stated that provided HQ AFPC/DPPD determines the applicant’s reason for separation should remain...
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98- 00468 COUNSEL : NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her grade at the time she enlisted in the Air National Guard be changed to Airman. Her request was denied because the college transcript from the college was dated 20 January 1998, which is after her date of enlistment. However, she has provided a copy of her college transcript and at the time of her enlistment she...
The 22 August 1997 MHE [performed by the same doctor] advised that the applicant had continued to receive treatment. He contended that his squadron did not return him to the flight line as was recommended by the first MHE. Consequently, we conclude the applicant’s SPD code should be changed to “KFF.” His RE code of “2C” should remain as it reflects his involuntary honorable discharge and, in view of the apparently valid psychiatric diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder, we do not believe he...
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, Enlisted Promotion & Military Testing Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, states that if the AFBCMR voids the applicant’s placement on the Control Roster, which was the basis for his ineligibility for promotion to the grade of master sergeant, and he is otherwise qualified, he would be entitled to restoration of his grade. We note that the Chief, Commander’s Programs Branch, HQ AFPC//DPSFC,...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-00509 INDEX CODE: 136.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be granted an Air Force Reserve retirement based on 20 satisfactory years of service. A memorandum, dated 18 Dec 97, indicated that the applicant, with an expiration term of service (ETS) of 12 Dec 97, had failed to reenlist and that...
Complete copies of the cover letter and the Record of Proceedings are attached at Exhibit F. In letters dated 22 October and 3 December 1998, the applicant provided additional documentation and asked for an upgraded discharge with a corresponding RE code. We find no error or injustice regarding his general discharge and, since the discharge drove the applicant’s RE code, the “2B” he received is valid. Exhibit H. FBI Response.
Separation from the Air Force at that time was the proper recommendation. A complete copy of the DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on 3 Aug 98 for review and response. The evidence of record reflects that the applicant was honorably discharged for a character and behavior disorder.
She has been married to an active duty Air Force member for 23 years and supported his entire career (Exhibit A). The board recommended that the applicant be discharged because of unfitness with a general discharge. The records indicated that the applicant’s military service was reviewed and appropriate action was taken.
A complete copy of the Record of Proceedings is attached at Exhibit E. At the time the application was considered by the Board, the letter from applicant’s wife was not a part of the record. However, the records before this Board does not reflect he was TDY during April 1971 to May 1971. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 4 August 1999, under the provisions of AFI...
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.
Furthermore, the EOT representative’s failure to interview the applicant during the informal investigation did not prejudice the applicant’s rights because he was interviewed during the formal investigation. f. Interviewing him in the formal investigation does not negate the fact that the informal process was not done correctly. However, since he was interviewed during the formal investigation, we do not believe the failure to interview him during the informal investigation taints the...