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 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 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's counsel and the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). Whereas the Air Force rates a member’s disability at the time of separation.
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 applicant provided a 59-page rebuttal dated 19 January 1996. A copy of the complete evaluation is attached at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Counsel submits a brief specifying which documents in the applicant’s records are tainted and should be corrected or removed. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the...
The BCD reflects the applicant’s characterization of active duty service. We also find insufficient evidence to warrant a recommendation that the discharge be upgraded on the basis of clemency. Exhibit B.
Therefore, his achievements for the last six months and the most significant ones in his entire Air Force career were not documented anywhere in his Record of Performance (ROP) reviewed by the rater, LTC ---, and the senior rater, Colonel ---, when they prepared his PRF. The applicant provides a letter from his senior rater dated four years after the 1989 Major Board. He recommends that the corrected PRF prepared by Colonel --- be entered into the applicant’s record.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-01062 INDEX CODE 135.02 131.09 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His grade of E-7 be restored and he be awarded 13 additional points for the period 30 July 1996 to 29 July 1997 for a satisfactory year of Federal service, credited for 12 years, 4 months, and 19 days of prior active Federal...
A complete 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 applicant on 15 Jun 98 for review and response. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that the RE code issued at the time of his discharge was either in error or unjust. While the AF Form 418, denying...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-01076 INDEX CODE: 100, 107 COUNSEL: GIL S. SOSA HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) be corrected to reflect duty in and to award him the Service Medal and Small Arms Expert Marksmanship Ribbon with 1 Bronze Service Star. Since...
Applicant explains that he should have received additional constructive service credit for education and experience upon his transfer to the Air National Guard. The Chief states that applicant’s civilian experience from 1 Oct 92 to 16 Jun 94 is not creditable because this was part-time employment; his experience from 16 Jun 94 through his date of appointment in the Air National Guard was duplicated credit since he was already commissioned in the Army National Guard and according to Air...
They further state, although the applicant did not request it, they assume he would like special selection board (SSB consideration by the CY97B board if the “C” prefix is added to the DAFSC on either the OSB or the OPRs or both. A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states that he strongly disagrees with the recommendation made in the advisory opinion that his request not be...
Applicant was nominated for promotion to the grade of MSgt under the PEP with an effective date f o r promotion of 1 April 1997. 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; and that the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with this application. ...
Review of medical records does not disclose any evidence to support correction of records from length of service retirement to disability retirement or to override the OGD. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice warranting correcting the applicant’s records to show that he served satisfactory in the grade of lieutenant colonel pursuant to Title 10, USC, Section 1370(a); and that he retired in that grade. Based on his...
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 only error that may have occurred is that the applicant was sentenced to a BCD. Therefore, we recommend that the applicant’s records be corrected as indicated below. ___________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that on 23 December 1958, he was discharged with service characterized as general (under honorable conditions).
In his 20 April 1998 appeal to the AFBCMR, the applicant requested his honorable discharge be changed to a medical disability discharge. Also provided was a statement from an individual who asserts he saw a drill instructor assault the applicant and “signed a police report on this matter in 1975 for the airforce police.” All of these letters, with their attachments, are at Exhibit I. A copy of the complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. The Chief, Physical Disability Division, HQ AFPC/DPPD,...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed the application and addressed the supplemental promotion consideration issue. None of this, however, could conceivably explain his rater’s comment on the performance report in question that addressed his medical problems as “adversely affect(ing) his executive ability.” A medical physical profile, dated 13 Apr 88, addressed the applicant’s weight...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-01127 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His bad conduct discharge (BCD) be changed to a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. At the time of the offense for which the applicant was court-martialed, he was a staff sergeant with over nine years of active service. We...
Applicant was considered for promotion to the grade of technical sergeant (E-6), and selected, by the 92A6 promotion cycle with a date of rank (DOR) and effective date of 1 October 1991. Subsequent to the applicant’s retirement from the Air Force on 1 January 1996, he was awarded the Defense Meritorious Service Medal (DMSM) for the period 2 March 1986 to 31 December 1990, for meritorious service, per Permanent Orders 310-01, dated 6 November 1997. As stated by AFPC/DPPPWB, had the Defense...
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.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-01179 INDEX CODE: 131.05 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His date of rank (DOR) for promotion to airman (E-2) be changed from 20 Jan 98 to 7 Oct 97. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Special Actions & Personal Affairs, ANG/DPPU,...
Available Master Personnel Records C. FBI Report D. Advisory Opinions E. AFBCMR L t r Forwarding Advisory Opinions DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE HEADQUARTERS AIR FORCE PERSONNEL CENTER RANDOLPH AIR FORCE BASE, TEXAS 28 Jul98 MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR FROM: HQ AFPC/DPPD 550 C Street West Ste 06 Randolph AFB TX 78 150-4708 SUBJECT: rrection of Military Records REQUESTED ACTION: Applicant requests that his Air Force personnel records correctly reflect that his honorable discharge reflect he was...
Applicant's submission is at Exhibit A. Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Washington, D.C., 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). RICHARD A. PETERSON Panel Chair Exhibits: A.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-01188 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. The Retirements Branch, AFPC/DPPRR, reviewed this application and states that there are no provisions of law to allow Regular captains who have been nonselected for promotion to the...
I AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-01199 COUNSEL: NONE The applicant requests that his separation from the Air Force be changed from "Entry Level Separation" to "Honorable. 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 commander advised applicant that if his recommendation is approved, that his...
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). On 9 Jan 92, the applicant pled and was found guilty of stealing and cashing a check belonging to his wife as well as forging his wife’s signature on the check at a special court-martial held at Davis Monthan AFB, Arizona. Applicant is a retired Air Force A1C who is requesting retirement in the grade of staff sergeant (SSgt).
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 opinion 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.
DPPPA further states that an evaluation report is considered to represent the rating chain’s best judgment at the time it is rendered and once a report is accepted for file, only strong evidence to the contrary warrants correction or removal from an individual’s record. The EPR was designed to provide a rating for a specific period of time based on the performance noted during that period, not based on previous performance. Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 13 Jul 98.
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 29 Aug 89 for a period of 4 years. A complete copy of the JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In his response, the applicant indicated that there is disagreement as to whether his paranoid schizophrenia was evident during his Air Force service. ...
In his proposed AFI 36-2401 appeal, applicant contends that his key duties, task and responsibilities were inaccurate; he should not have been rated by another staff sergeant; the statements by the evaluators are incorrect; and his supervision should not have allowed the unsubstantiated and badly written EPR to be entered in his permanent record. In support of his appeal, applicant provided a copy of Summary Report of Investigation, with his rebuttal comments; a proposed appeal package for...
The applicant reenlisted in the Regular Air Force on 18 August 1980 for a period of 4 years. On 17 August 1984, the applicant was honorably discharged in the grade of master sergeant under the provisions of AFR 39-10 (Expiration Term of Service) and issued a Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of 4I (Serving on Control Roster). A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Staff Judge Advocate, AFPC/JA, reviewed this application and states the applicant...
Applicant’s DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, reflects that his service characterization was upgraded to honorable by the Air Force Discharge Review Board effective 20 December 1990 and that the narrative reason for separation was changed from Misconduct - Minor Disciplinary Infractions to Convenience of the Government. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. Applicant should also be informed that this decision is final and...
On 16 June 1997, she requested to be medically deferred from the WMP; her request was denied. According to DOD and AF IG documents, the applicant filed a complaint with the 12th AF IG on 10 December 1997, alleging unfair treatment by the 43rd ECS commander, first sergeant, and squadron section commander. On 15 December 1997, the applicant filed a second complaint with the 12th AF IG alleging the 43rd ECS commander, first sergeant, and squadron section commander had had taken unfavorable...
On 12 November 1996, the applicant was notified of his commander's intent to impose nonjudicial punishment on him under Article 15, UCMJ. On 13 December 1996, the applicant was notified of the commander’s intent to file the Article 15 in his Officer Selection Record (OSR). On 11 April 1997, the squadron commander recommended the applicant for “all of his requested Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) selections and locations.” No documentation exists as to how the applicant entered JUNT except...
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's application and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending denial of the applicant’s requests for award of the Purple Heart and correction of his separation document to reflect wounds he received in action (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...
As part of the retirement processing, a highest grade determination was done by the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) on 1 August 1994 and it was determined that the applicant had not served satisfactorily in the grade of CMSgt and would not be advanced to that grade on the Retired List. After reviewing the evidence of record, we note that Section 8964, Title 10, United States Code allows the advancement of enlisted the highest grade in which they served on active...
A complete copy of the additional evaluation is at Exhibit E. The Chief, Retirements/Separations Division, HQ ARPC/DPA, explains the eligibility for Reserve retired pay under the provisions of Title 10, USC, Section 12731. While the deceased member’s military personnel record indicates he completed 19 years, 10 months and 19 days of honorable Federal service, only 17 years, 10 months, and 19 days of this time is satisfactory service. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and...
The Air Force calls this two-year window “sanctuary.” Normally, sanctuary allows twice passed over officers who have at least 18 years of service to remain on active duty until 20 years and then retire. There are no provisions of law that would allow applicant to be retired with 14 years and 8 months of active service. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that he should receive credit for four months of active duty to allow...
Since the applicant had served on active duty in the higher grade of MSgt from 1 June 1993 through 14 December 1997, an advancement grade determination was required and accomplished at the time of applicant’s request for retirement. A copy of the complete Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit C. The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, also evaluated the case and indicates the demotion action taken against the applicant was procedurally correct and there is no evidence there were...
Based on the preponderance of evidence, the board concluded that if the applicant was currently serving on active duty with his medical condition, the IPEB would consider him unfit for the rigors of military service and recommend that he be discharged with severance pay with a 10% disability rating. The applicant did not have 20 years of service at the time of his discharge. The BCMR Medical Consultant believes applicant should be awarded a length of service retirement on the basis of...
The discharge complied with directives in effect at the time and records indicate his military service was reviewed and appropriate action was taken. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and indicated that, while in the Air Force, he had frequent problems with the people who shared his barracks. DOUGLAS...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-01337 INDEX CODE 121.03 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Twenty-five (25) days of lost leave be reinstated. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was not provided an opportunity to use the leave he’d accrued during the time he was...
Applicant was considered and not selected for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the CY87, CY89, CY90 and CY91A Selection Boards. Applicant contends the Air Force selection boards are in violation of DoDD 1320.12 by not conducting individual selection boards for each competitive category and preparing individual reports for those boards. We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and...
A copy of the Air Force evaluation, with attachments, 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 22 June 1998 for review and response. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that he should be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by special selection...
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, Enlisted Promotion & Military Testing Branch, AFPC/DPPPWB, states that should the AFBCMR set aside the reduction as requested by the applicant, his original effective date and date of rank to airman first class was 30 September 1996. After reviewing the evidence of record and the statements from the applicant’s commander and the flight leader, we believe that the applicant’s date of...
On 2 July 1998, he reenlisted for a period of 6 years, for which he received a Zone B bonus for approximately 4 years, 10 months (the 13- month extension time was deducted because it was obligated service). A copy of the complete Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 13 July 1998 for review and...
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.
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Director of Personnel Program Management, ARPC/DPAR, reviewed this application and indicated that the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 1995 (FY95), PL 103-337, Section 517, 5 Oct 94, authorized physically disqualified members who completed at least 15 years of satisfactory Federal service with the last six qualifying years in a Reserve component, entitlement to Reserve retired...
Applicant alleges that her signature on AF Form 694, “Data for Payment of Retired Air Force Personnel,” the concurrence portion for an SBP election concurring with less than full spouse SBP coverage, is forged. Although it is unfortunate there is no original document for comparison with regard to the applicant’s signature, we found no persuasive evidence that she did not sign the document at the time of her late husband’s retirement which appears to be properly witnessed. ...