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 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. There is no record of the Reserve grade of lieutenant colonel being questioned within the three-year...
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.
(Exhibit A) ___________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Information extracted from the Personnel Data System (PDS) reflects applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) as 5 January 1988. However, the applicant will not become a selectee during this cycle if the Board grants his request. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...
On 23 October 1998, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied an application submitted by applicant requesting that her general discharge be upgraded to honorable. A copy of the AFDRB Hearing Record is at Exhibit C. The AFDRB Hearing Record was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment (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...
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Applicant enlisted in the Hawaii National Guard on 24 July 1990, in the grade airman basic for four years. On 6 March 1992, applicant was promoted to the grade of senior airman. JOE G. LINEBERGER Director Air Force Review Boards Agency AFBCMR 98-01672 MEMORANDUM FOR DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE REVIEW BOARDS AGENCY, SAF/MIB SUBJECT: Minority Report on BCMR Case of APPLICANT I am not in agreement with the majority...
A complete copy of the DPPPAB 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. After a thorough review of the available evidence, we are not convinced that the applicant’s evaluators were unable to render unbiased evaluations of his performance or that the ratings on the contested report were based...
-- Pdnel C h a i d Attachment: Ltr, HQ AFPC/DPPAE, dtd 23 June 1998 DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON, D. C. Office of the Assistant Secretary AFBCMR 98-01690 JUL 2 7 1998 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...
The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied applicant s request on 29 July 1998. (Atch 1-3) Copies of the documents to .be forwarded to the separation authority in support of this recommendation are attached. In addition to military counsel, you have the right to employ civilian counsel.
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 counsel and 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 or counsel.
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). t In September 1998, our office reviewed the applicants records in response to his request for the PH.
AFBCMR 98-01712 INDEX CODE: 137.04 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 , be corrected to show that on 12 May 1995, he elected to change...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, Enlisted Promotion & Military Testing Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, states that the first time the contested report was considered in the promotion process was cycle 96E5 to staff sergeant. The applicant provided a statement from his rater, but failed to provide any information/support from the other members of his rating chain on the contested EPR. A complete copy of the...
A copy of the complete Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant reviewed the evaluations and provides, along with other documents, a copy of the EOT complaint he filed in 1992, but without any finding/recommendation. Applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we do not find these assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the evidence of...
Although the applicant met the requirements for practice as a plastic surgeon in the civilian community, he failed to meet the Air Force requirements for plastic surgery certification (i.e., five-years general surgery residency and additional three-year plastic surgery fellowship). Applicant's complete response is attached at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Superintendent, Medical Special Pay Branch,...
The commander states that there is no question that returning the applicant to active duty and allowing his promotion would benefit the Air Force. On 10 January 1998, the applicant was notified of a short tour assignment to Osan AB, Korea and declined the assignment. The applicant’s application for retirement was processed correctly.
Applicant's submission is at Exhibit A. The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The facts and opinions stated in the advisory opinion appear to be based on the evidence of record and have not been persuasively rebutted by the applicant or counsel.
She requested a waiver for the FSA and a letter, dated 29 May 1998 indicated that the policy that a member is not entitled to the FSA was waived. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that she requested, and a competent authority approved, a Secretarial waiver authorizing payment of Family Separation Allowance, Type II (FSA-II)...
Regardless, at best, this would be an administrative error and not justification for voiding the report.” While the applicant contends that he was not given feedback during the contested reporting period, only members in the rating chain can confirm if counseling was provided. DPPPAB disagrees and states that AFR 39- 62 (paragraph 2-25) defines a referral report as an EPR with a rating in the far left block of any performance factor in Section III (Evaluation of Performance) and a rating 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). 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.
Noting the rater’s statement of support, DPPPA stated the rater indicates he decided to change his evaluation and overall rating based on “performance feedback that was not available during the time of her rating considerations and post discussions with one of her past supervisors.” The rater has not stated what he knows now that he did not know when the original EPR was prepared. Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit...
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.
RAYMOND H. WELLER Chief Examiner Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-01761 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be considered for promotion to the Reserve grade of lieutenant colonel by Special Selection Board (SSB) for the Fiscal Year 1999 (FY99) Air Force Reserve Lieutenant...
With regard to the applicant’s request to correct the Assignment History section on the Officer Selection Brief (OSB) reviewed by the CY98B promotion board, we note that AFPC/DPAPS1 concurs with the applicant that the duty titles for 6 May 1991 and 1 October 1991 as reflects “Mechanical Engineer” are incorrect and should be deleted. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s complete submission, we are not persuaded that the Air Force Achievement Medal First Oak Leaf...
Computation of pay credit is not required.” She was recalled to extended active duty (EAD) from inactive Reserve status on 4 January 1998. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Officer Verification Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPAOR, advises that, upon implementation of DOD Directive 1310.1 (Rank and Seniority of Commissioned Officers), effective 1 October 1996, all Reserve officers on the Reserve Active Status List in transition from the...
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.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-01773 INDEX NUMBER: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His 6 April 1962 undesirable (under other than honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided a copy of an...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-01776 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge. The applicant informed the commander he did not intend to go to Travis to make his flight on 6 Nov 68 because he had a fear of flying and had family problems at...
The applicant was discharged on 23 July 1982 in the grade of airman with a general characterization and an RE code of “2B” (Separated with other than an honorable discharge). The discharge complied with directives in effect at the time, the applicant’s military service was reviewed and appropriate action was taken. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that his discharge or RE code should be upgraded.
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). After careful consideration of applicant's...
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.
A copy of the complete evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed the case and provided the pertinent information regarding the applicant’s demotion. After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded the narrative reason for his discharge should be changed or his grade restored. Exhibit B.
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinion 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 should also be informed that this decision is final and will only be reconsidered upon the presentation of new relevant evidence which was not reasonably available at the time the application was filed.
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.
Applicant's submission is at Exhibit A. Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Washington, D. C., provided a copy of an investigation 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). After careful consideration of...
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-01806 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: NO Form 214 (Certificate of be corrected to show his listed and the Vietnam Release Vietnam Service Applicant requests that his DD or Discharge From Active Duty) service dates and all schools Medal. The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board- -recommending the application be denied...
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: 98-01813 INDEX CODE: 131.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: She be allowed to retest for promotion to staff sergeant (E-5) in the Weighted Airman Promotion System (WAPS) for cycle 98E5, in the Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) of 3M050 (Services Craftsman). AFI 36-2605 requires individuals to...
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant's military records (Exhibit B), are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force (Exhibits C, D, E and F). After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, a majority of the Board concludes that no relief is warranted. As he had no unfitting condition, the majority of the Board agrees with the AFBCMR Medical Consultant that consideration...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-01823 INDEX CODE: 131.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be considered for promotion to the Reserve grade of major by Special Selection Board (SSB) for the Fiscal Year 1998 (FY98) Air Force Reserve Major Position Vacancy (PV) Selection Board. The Air Force states that the AFCM was not...
DPSFC stated that, if HQ AFPC/DPPRS agrees, the applicant’s retirement date should be changed from 1 Jul to 1 Sep 98. To grant the applicant additional active duty time to use 77 days of leave, his retirement date would have to be extended by 3 full months. Given the lost opportunity, and the change of circumstances, he was not even able to zero out the leave and permissive TDY days prior to 1 Jul 98.
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON, DC Office of the Assistant Secretary AFBCMR 84-01831 FEB a 8 I999 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: .. a n The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air , be...
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 did not identi5 any specific errors in the discharge processing nor provide facts which warrant a change in the narrative reason for discharge he received.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-01834 INDEX CODE: 100 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The narrative reason for his separation be changed from “Involuntary discharge: Moral Misconduct or Professional Dereliction: Loss of Professional Status” to “Involuntary Discharge: Secretarial Authority” so that he may serve in the Air...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-01837 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Air Force Achievement Medal (AFAM) he was awarded for his actions on 20 October 1987, be upgraded to the Airman’s Medal (AmnM). An enlisted member who has been awarded the AmnM for heroism may request a 10% increase in retired pay. Complete copies of the Air Force evaluations are attached at Exhibits C and D. The...
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS FEB 2 4 I999 IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-01837 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO The Air Force Achievement Medal (AFAM) he was awarded for his actions on 20 October 1987, be upgraded to the Airman's Medal (AmnM) . Complete copies of the Air Force evaluations are attached at Exhibits C and D. The SAF Personnel Council reviewed this application and states that the Air Force Awards and Decorations Board recommends...
On 24 Mar 98, the applicant voluntarily requested early separation from the Air Force to be effective 17 Apr 98 by submitting an AF Form 31 (Airman’s Request for Early Separation/Separation Based on Change in Service Obligation) to attend Wrightco Technologies Training Institute with a class start date of 27 Apr 98. His discharge complied with directives in effect at the time and the records indicate his military service was reviewed and appropriate action was taken. After a thorough...
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 should also be informed that this decision is final and will only be reconsidered upon the presentation of new relevant evidence which was not reasonably available at the time the application was filed.
Based on the applicant’s testimony and the medical evidence, the FPEB supported the findings and recommendations of the IPEB and recommended that the applicant be discharged with severance pay with a 20% disability rating. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. The Physical Disability Division, AFPC/DPPD, reviewed this application and recommended denial, stating the applicant has not submitted any material or documentation to show he was inappropriately rated or processed under 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 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.