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 Tyndall AFB Enlisted Club. Applicant was advised by letter dated 10 February 1995 that the commander of the 19th Air Force...
The OPR closing 29 July 1995 with a DAFSC as “12F1F” should read “12F3F”; and the AAM was not listed on his records. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Appeals and SSB Branch, Directorate of Personnel Program Management, HQ AFPC DPPPA, reviewed this application and states that the applicant did not provide anything to convince them he made attempts prior to the CY97C board convened to correct the contested duty title omission on his OSB. From...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-00590 (Case 3) INDEX CODE: 107.00, 111.00 COUNSEL: AREA DEFENSE COUNSEL HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Letter of Evaluation (LOE), AF Form 77 (Supplemental Evaluation Sheet), dated 7 Sep 96, be removed from his records; and, that he be provided a letter of apology from the evaluator (Lt Col K---) of...
On 30 Sep 95, he was assigned to the Retired Reserve Section in the grade of E-7 and placed on the Air Force Reserve Retired List, awaiting pay at age 60. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Directorate of Personnel, HQ AFRC/DPM, has determined from their evaluation of the applicant’s case that he is not eligible for Reserve Transition Assistance Program (RTAP) benefits. A copy of his response is appended at Exhibit...
The bar to her reappointment as a Reserve commissioned officer be removed from her records and she be reinstated as an Air Force Reserve officer. In the applicant’s statement dated 11 August 1998, she requests that prior to the convening of the ResAF Selection Review Board, she be afforded the opportunity to provide to that Board written documentation attesting to her civil employment, from 1996 to the present date, as Director of Nursing at Enterprise Nursing Home, her appointment as...
However, the DOD IG concluded that his allegation of reprisal was not substantiated (Exhibit C). No evidence has been presented which would lead us to believe that the findings of the DOD IG were erroneous. Applicant's Master Personnel Records and Exhibit C. DOD IG Report, dated 4 Jun 96 (withdrawn).
INDEX CODE: 121 AFBCMR 98-00639 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 APPLICANT be corrected to show that sixty-five (65) days of leave 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). 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.
In fact, the item was the spouse notification letter sent by the SBP counselor to inform his wife of the options and effects of the SBP and to advise her that her concurrence was required in any election other than full spouse coverage. Basis for Request: The applicant claims he received an incorrect SBP briefing and the child SBP premiums are four times more than he was briefed. v 8 b. Unmarried children normally remain eligible beneficiaries until they reach age 18, or age 22 if...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Retiree Services Branch, AFPC/DPPTR, reviewed this application and states that a member who is married at retirement and fails to provide coverage for an eligible spouse may not provide coverage in the future, unless Congress authorizes an open enrollment period. The one-year enrollment period to add family members acquired after retirement is applicable only when no previous category 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's counsel and 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.
However, the Article 15 action was never completed. The records indicate his military service was reviewed and appropriate action was taken. Based on our determination that the Article 15 should be removed from his records, we also recommend he be reinstated to active duty.
Because of the manning shortage of clinical nurses in the AFRes at that time, individuals with an Associate Degree in Nursing were entitled to a stipend under the Air Force Ready Reserve Stipend Program (AFRRSP) to pursue a Baccalaureate Degree in Nursing (BSN). Applying this argument to the stipend program generally would place an obligation on the Air Force to personally notify each affected officer prior to removing a specialty from the list of critical specialties. ...
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.
INDEX CODE: 111.01, 111.03 AFBCMR 98-00728 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...
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.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-00731 INDEX CODE 107.00 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His DD Form 214 reflect that his 11 months and 29 days of foreign service was served in Korea. Therefore, the Advisor recommends applicant’s records be corrected to show the 11 months and 29 days of foreign service was served in Korea. ...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-00753 INDEX CODE: 107 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge, be corrected by adding the appropriate awards/decorations as follows: Add the Air Force Good Conduct Medal (AFGCM) Add the Presidential Unit Citation (PUC)...
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 office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). Applicant's responses 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. He applies now requesting removal or correction (exact request unclear) of a medical summary...
However, he has still not provided any documentation showing he was in the Area of Responsibility. Since the applicant has failed to state when he was supposed to have been in the Area of Responsibility, and has not provided any official documentation showing when and where he was TDY from Spain in order to earn the Kuwait Liberation Medal, we can not verify his eligibility for the Kuwait Liberation Medal (Kuwait). Applicant’s records do not indicate any Persian Gulf awards or statements...
In this case, the Secretary of the Air Force determined that applicant made his homosexual statements for the purpose of seeking separation, and that determination is the basis for recoupment. Therefore, based on the totality of the evidence before this Board, we recommend his records be corrected to the extent indicated below. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force...
INDEX CODE: 137.04 AFBCMR 98-00796 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...
Also, based on MSgt T---'s statement, it appears the applicant complied with MSgt W---'s order to remain silent. DPSFC recommended denying the applicant's request to remove the LOR, Control Roster placement and EPR on the basis that the applicant did not provide sufficient justification to warrant removal. According to DPPPAB, the applicant believed he did not receive a “5” promotion recommendation on his EPR closing 8 Oct 97 because of his placement on the control roster.
INDEX CODE: 100.03 AFBCMR 98-00804 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 Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that his reenlistment eligibility (RE) code, issued in conjunction with his honorable discharge on 14...
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and indicated that the dates on the AFCM certificate are what he is trying to correct and have permanently recorded on his DD Form 214. After a thorough review of the applicant’s submission, the Board was sufficiently persuaded that his DD Form 214 should be corrected to...
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 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.
The fact is, the applicant presented himself to mental health services during his period of service with apparently bonafide evidence of psychotic hallucinations/behavior and this was not considered in his discharge processing. A complete copy of the DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on 17 Aug 98 for review and response....
He be advanced to the highest grade held (HGH) of Chief Master Sergeant (CMSgt), effective 1 March 1992, based upon over 30 years of service in the armed forces as enacted into law per 10 USC 8964(F), Public Law 100-180, 4 December 1987. It was determined that the applicant had served satisfactorily in the highest grade of CMSgt and that he be advanced on 27 February 2002, which is the date the applicant will have completed 30 years of active service and service on the retired list. He...
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). After careful consideration of applicant's request and the available evidence of record, we find insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant corrective action.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-00873 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Directorate of Personnel Program Management, ARPC/DP, reviewed this application and states that the applicant did not complete 20 years of satisfactory service...
A copy of the Record of Proceedings (ROP), with attachments, is attached at Exhibit F. Applicant has now submitted a letter, dated 29 April 1999, attaching a statement from a retired senior master sergeant, who was the applicant’s immediate supervisor for the period 1961 to 1963, who states that the applicant is deserving of the AFCM. After reviewing the applicant’s military records and the documentation submitted, the majority of the Board believes there was an injustice to the...
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Neither her Armed Forces Health Professions Scholarship Program (AFHPSP) contract nor the AFI states that her Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps (AFROTC) ADSC could not be served during an active duty military residency. A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit G. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL...
Second, the 939 RQW/CC used alleged misconduct from a prior enlistment as evidence that he failed to meet Air Force military standards in the adverse personnel action. Third, the applicant claims that because he was not in a military status at the time of his alleged misconduct, that misconduct cannot serve as a basis for his involuntary transfer to the standby Reserve. HQ USAF/JAG states that Air Force policy permits the use of prior enlistment misconduct as a basis for involuntary...
_________________________________________________________________ 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 Air Force...
The Medical Consultant recommended the applicant’s request for medical disability retirement be denied. A complete copy of this response is appended at Exhibit F. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The AFBCMR Medical Consultant stated that records indicate the applicant had no significant problem with leg pain at any of his annual physical examinations performed in each of the three years following his cath, and he was returned...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-00949 INDEX CODE 108.02 COUNSEL: American Legion HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His 1997 administrative discharge for failure in the Weight Management Program (WMP) be changed to a medical retirement or, in the alternative, he be given a medical discharge with a 20% rating for severance pay. ...
To provide relief at this time based on the evidence submitted would provide the applicant an opportunity not afforded other retirees and is not justified. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and states that he never received the 29 October 1997 letter from the SBP counselor before now; his spouse never...
The Secretary of the Air Force, after reviewing all the facts and the applicant’s submissions, concluded that he should be disenrolled and ordered to repay the Government for the cost of the Academy education. After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record, and noting the applicant’s contentions, we are not persuaded the applicant was denied due process during his disenrollment proceedings and his behavior at the USAFA did not constitute misconduct under 10 USC 2005. Prior to his...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed this application and indicated that, the first time the report was considered in the promotion process was cycle 97E7 to master sergeant (promotions effective Aug 97 - Jul 98). While the applicant provided two letters from his rater who claims that she was coerced by her superiors and changed her evaluation of the applicant’s duty performance...
United States Air Forces in Europe (USAFE) major command (MAJCOM) denied this award on grounds that he was a flight surgeon and thus considered no more than a passenger on these flights, while other flight surgeons (assigned to different commands) were awarded this medal during the same period for participating on the same flight missions. HQ USAFE supplemented this regulation with additional criteria, to be applied to regularly assigned aircrew members, but not to flight surgeons. ...
In his opinion, the applicant’s request for removal of the contested reports should be accomplished to correct an injustice of circumstances (Exhibit C). The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, stated that the first time the contested reports were considered in the promotion process was Cycle 96E7 to master sergeant (E-7), promotions effective Aug 96 - Jul 97. Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated 17 Jun 98.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-00995 INDEX CODE: 131.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Corrections be made to assignment history, aeronautical rating, and his aircraft assignment and total flying hours; and, that he be given Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration by the CY97A Medical Corps (MC) Colonel Board, which...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-01001 INDEX CODE: 107.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to reflect award of the Vietnam Service Medal and the time he served on temporary duty (TDY) during the Vietnam Conflict. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS...
On 20 October 1982, the applicant submitted a request for release from extended active duty to be effective 1 December 1982. A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Physical Disability Division, HQ AFPC/DPPD, states that the purpose of the military disability evaluation system is to maintain a fit and vital force by separating members who are unable to perform the duties of their office, grade, rank or rating. A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached...
Upon his discharge in 1969, his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) indicated that, in addition to the then current four years “net service this period” he was given creditable service “other service” of 1 year, 2 months, and 3 days. He has lived his adult life with the thought that his undesirable time was deemed creditable as a result of his original appeal to the AFDRB and serving honorably the additional 4 years. Insufficient relevant...
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.
AIR FORCE BOA~D FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS . The 'appropriate Air Force 'office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). However should the Board decide to grant relief, the member’s records should be corrected to void his election to add71is child as an SBP beneficiary and refund the portion of the SBP premiums related to the child coverage.
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 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.