-...I 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). c. On 14 Jul98, the applicant was again requested to provide a copy of the recommendation package, with a copy of the DECOR-6, and informing him it was the applicant’s responsibility to h i s h all documentation to substantiate his claim.
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). After careful consideration of applicant's request and the available evidence of record, we find insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant corrective action.
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The 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.
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.
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Retiree Services Branch, AFPC/DPPTR, reviewed this application and states that a member, who is married during an enrollment period, may elect coverage for an eligible spouse but if the retiree fails to provide coverage during that opportunity, they may not provide coverage in the future, unless it is during another open enrollment period. There is no evidence of Air Force error; therefore,...
As an alternative, that his record, with the corrected PRF, indicating the proper duty title be directed to meet a Special Selection Board (SSB). On 18 Jun 97, the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) was convinced by the applicant’s documentation that the duty title needed correction but did not grant promotion reconsideration by the CY96C board since their “authority to grant SSB consideration is restricted to cases in which the evidence clearly warrants promotion...
In the applicant’s case, the IPEB and FPEB during their evaluations both determined his condition as “May be Permanent.” The permanence determination of the applicant’s medical condition was based on the preponderance of medical evidence provided at the time of his medical evaluation. However, in our opinion, it appears that with proper rest and therapy, the applicant’s medical problem may have resolved itself within a reasonable period of time, he would have been able to return to his...
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: 98-01433 INDEX CODE: 106.00 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His 1955 Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD) be changed to an honorable or an under honorable conditions discharge. Further, given the fact that he had three court-martial convictions during his brief period of military service, we are not...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-01438 INDEX CODE: 110.03 COUNSEL: HENRY MAYNARD, SR HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be reinstated to Active Guard/Reserve (AGR) status to include back pay and benefits and, until such time, he be given separation pay. The commander’s reasons were: the applicant’s wrongful appropriation of unauthorized cash advances in the amount of $1,100.00, having an unpaid balance...
While the RE code assigned to the applicant, at the time, was correct and in accordance with regulation, we believe it would be an injustice for applicant to continue to suffer its effects in the way of enlistment opportunities in the armed forces in view of his accomplishments since leaving the service and the support provided with his application. Accordingly, we recommend that the records be corrected as indicated below. Exhibit B.
The commander advised applicant that if his recommendation was approved, that his discharge would be described as entry level separation and that he would be ineligible for reenlistment in the Air Force. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the evaluation and states that it was explained to him by Air Force personnel that if...
His oncologist has stated that, had a testicular exam been done in October 1993, the cancer would have been diagnosed then. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Physical Education Branch, HQ AFPC/DPAME, reviewed the case and states that for the period 1986-1994, while in Medical School on HPSP Scholarship and while completing his residency, the applicant was in an inactive, obligated Reserve status. A copy of the complete Air...
The applicant did not submit evidence or identify any errors in the discharge processing nor provide facts which warrant an upgrade of the discharge he received over 48 years ago. Should the applicant provide additional documentation pertaining to his post-service activities, the Board may be willing to reconsider his request for clemency at a later time. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence...
The applicant did not submit evidence or identify any errors in the discharge processing nor provide facts which warrant an upgrade of the discharge he received over 48 years ago. Should the applicant provide additional documentation pertaining to his post-service activities, the Board may be willing to reconsider his request for clemency at a later time. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence...
After his retirement, he was informed he could not sell 60 days of leave because he had sold 54 days in 1978/1979 as an enlisted member. A copy of the complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. The Retirements Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPRR, advises that there is no provision in AFI 36-3203 to extend an approved retirement for the sole purpose to be paid for accrued leave or to take terminal leave. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded he...
The Retirement and Separations Operations Section, AFPC/DPPRR, administratively corrected applicant’s records as follows (Exhibit C): a. DD Form 214, issued on 29 August 1965, was corrected to reflect award of the Good Conduct Medal with one Silver Loop. The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application for the above cited additional awards be denied (Exhibit D). The advisory opinion was forwarded to...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-01476 INDEX CODE: 100.06 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO Applicant requests that his records be corrected to reflect that at the time of his discharge, he was serving in the grade of sergeant, and his reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 2C be changed. Accordingly, applicant's requests are denied. HENRY ROMO, JR. Panel Chair Exhibits: A.
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). 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 Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant and counsel on 14 September 1998 for review and response. c. His request to receive Single Year Incentive Special Pay (ISP) in his Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) 045A3, was approved by competent authority effective 1 October 1996. d. On 30 September 1997,...
It appears that when the applicant reenlisted on 1 March 1995, he reenlisted in his Controlled Air Force Specialty Code (CAFSC) of “2A551J” and this AFSC was not on the Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) skills list. _______________________________________________________________________ _____________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that he was honorably discharged on 30 April...
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.
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Director of Personnel Program Management, HQ ARPC/DP, reviewed this application and states that at the present time, under 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 attached...
However, he has been advised that although he was selected for promotion to the grade of technical sergeant (E-6) in 1994, since his records were corrected to show that he was reinstated as a commissioned officer, he will have to reenlist as a staff sergeant (E-5). If he is not promoted to the grade of major, he requests promotion to the grade of technical sergeant with DOR of 1 August 1994, since this is the DOR he would have received had he not been returned to commissioned status. A...
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, advised that, should the Board set aside the Article 15, the applicant’s DOR and effective date to TSgt would be 1 November 1996 and, based on this DOR, he would be considered for MSgt for the first time in the promotion process cycle 99E7, provided he is otherwise eligible. As for the contested EPR, the first time this report will be considered in the promotion process will be for cycle...
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 Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) did not find it necessary to correct the report as the corrections had already been made by Headquarters AFPC/DPPBR3 on 29 Jan 98. 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 provided a two-page rebuttal indicating, in part, that the new TR is the result of a change...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-01528 INDEX CODE: 100 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of “2C” on the DD Form 214, “Certificate of Release or Discharge From Active Duty,” be changed to “1J” to allow enlistment into the Hawaii Air National Guard. We have thoroughly reviewed the evidence...
The appropriate Air Force offices 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 discharge would be described as entry level separation and that he would be ineligible for reenlistment in the Air Force. Applicant did not identifjl any specific errors in the discharge processing nor provide facts which warrant a change in the...
On 21 January 1997, the AMW commander recommended the RILO request be denied and, if accepted, the applicant be given a UOTHC discharge. The applicant was discharged with a UOTHC discharge effective 10 January 1998, resignation for the good of the service in lieu of CM for other offense, after 9 years, 4 months and 29 days of active duty. The SAFPC found that the depression was not the cause of the misconduct for which the CM charges were pending but was, rather, a result of the...
Therefore, a majority of the Board recommends her discharge be upgraded to honorable. Exhibit D. FBI Report, dated 14 Aug 98. DOUGLAS J. HEADY Panel Chair INDEX CODE: 100, 110 AFBCMR 98-01562 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 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 has submitted a request for correction of military records in regards to his self- initiated elimination (SIE) from T-4 1 training while attending the United States Air Force Academy (USAFA). However, if the decision is to grant the...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-01574 INDEX CODE: 106.00 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD) be upgraded to honorable. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The reasons applicant believes he has been the victim of an error and/or an injustice...
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.
On 3 July 1996, she reenlisted for a period of six years, with entitlement to a Zone B, Multiple one-half, SRB. She was honorably discharged on 28 May 1996 and reenlisted in the Regular Air Force on 29 May 1996 for a period of six (6), and at the time of her enlistment on 29 May 1996, she was entitled to a Zone B, Multiple 2.5, Selective Reenlistment Bonus. She was honorably discharged on 28 May 1996 and reenlisted in the Regular Air Force on 29 May 1996 for a period of six (6), and at the...
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant reviewed this application and states that the applicant clearly had no history of a seizure disorder prior to the one suffered on 8 December 1997. The BCMR Medical Consultant states that there is no evidence that the applicant was suffering from a preexisting condition at the time of his Unit...
On 5 Apr 89, the applicant was notified by the commander that he was recommending the applicant be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFR 39-10, paragraph 5-50.1, for drug abuse with service characterized as general. On 6 Jul 90, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge to honorable. Therefore, the Board recommends his discharge be upgraded to honorable and a majority of the Board recommends his RE...
He asserts this file contains several letters, including one from Colonel M---, who felt the punishment was too severe. On 1 October 1991, he was found guilty by a different 3246th Test Wing commander (presumably a successor) who imposed the punishment of reduction from TSgt to staff sergeant (SSgt) with a new date of rank (DOR) of 1 October 1991. It is the applicant’s duty to provide any and all documentation in support of his request.
However, in accordance with the provisions of law, the applicant was correctly retired in the grade of SRA, which was the grade he held on the date of his retirement. A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states that he is not in agreement with the decision made at this time on his request for highest grade held. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the...
He also believes the performance feedback worksheet (PFW) does not “mirror” the EPR and his rater based his evaluation “on the moment” and disregarded the Enlisted Evaluation System (EES). _________________________________________________________________ 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 98E6 to technical sergeant (promotions...
Period Ending Evaluation 4 Mar 94 5 - Immediate Promotion 22 Sep 94 5 8 Aug 95 5 * 2 Nov 95 3 - Consider for Promotion 2 Nov 96 5 15 Nov 97 5 26 Jun 98 5 1 Nov 98 5 * Contested referral report On 23 October 1995, applicant was notified of his commander's intent to impose nonjudicial punishment (Article 15) for committing the following offenses: making a false official statement to his squadron commander regarding the amount of funds in his bank account; presenting false official documents...
He also provided documentation presented with his appeal submitted under the provisions of AFI 36-2401 to the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB), which included copies of the contested reports; a Performance Feedback Worksheet, dated 14 Mar 96; documentation associated with a letter of reprimand received during the contested rating period; documentation associated with his training records; and several statements of character reference from co-workers and acquaintances. While...
In his submissions to the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB), he illustrated his insufficient training, his attempts to get training, and the different conversations he had with the rater concerning his duty performance and accomplished workload tasks. The applicant contends he did not receive the 28 Jun 96 feedback session as indicated on his 16 Nov 96 EPR; however, he did not provide anything from his evaluator to support his allegation. Especially in view of the fact that the report...
The applicant was non-weighable (could not be considered because he did not test) for the 96E6 cycle (testing months January - March 1996). The applicant was provided supplemental promotion consideration for promotion to the grade of TSgt by cycle 96E6 using his test scores from the cycle 97E6 (testing months January - March 1997). The applicant was provided supplemental promotion consideration for the 96E6 cycle using his test scores from the 97E6 cycle.
Therefore, they cannot accept the mere fact that the applicant was on aircraft nine times during combat sortie flights as “providing direct support” to operations in Vietnam. Now if they were flying recon missions over there he believes he was assigned or attached not only to the organization but to the aircraft as well. After reviewing the evidence submitted with this appeal, we believe that the applicant has not provided sufficient evidence showing that he is eligible for the Vietnam...
The Board has no authority to grant the applicant’s request to set aside or seal the applicant’s court-martial conviction. 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 the applicant on 24 August 1998 for review and response. Further, as noted by the Associate Chief, Military Justice Division, this Board...
The applicant’s DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge, indicates that he completed 2 months and 6 days of foreign service. Therefore, we recommend his records be corrected to the extend 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 he completed 3 months and 27 days, rather than 2 months and 6 days, of foreign service.
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). He has not filed a timely request.
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). Counsel'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.
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.