On 16 Mar 95, the Air Force Personnel Board considered the case and unanimously determined that the applicant did not serve satisfactorily in the grade of lieutenant colonel (0-5), and that he should be retired in the grade of major (0-4). On 30 Jun 95, the applicant was relieved from active duty in the grade of lieutenant colonel and retired, effective 1 Jul 95, in the grade of major. In the case of the applicant, the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Board reviewed his retirement...
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). On 11 Feb 70, the discharge authority approved the recommendation for discharge for unfitness and directed the applicant be issued an under honorable conditions (general) discharge certificate. The records indicate member’s military service was reviewed and appropriate action was taken.
Part of that inventory was to check the systems locker. One can easily conclude that the applicant pencil-whipped his inventory rather than conducting a thorough inspection. The action taken against the applicant was a vacation of suspended nonjudicial punishment.
A copy of the complete Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant reviewed the advisory and provides a “Late Decoration Recommendation” letter from his former commander that he recently found stored in his files and which he wants considered in his request for SSB consideration for his BPZ board [CY95A]. The former commander indicates that, after his departure, “the...
Evidently, the decision was not to set aside the Article 15. A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the evaluation and takes offense with the Air Force’s opinion that he did not serve satisfactorily in the higher grade of master sergeant. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are...
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Applicant was appointed a second lieutenant, Reserve of the Air Force, on 22 Jan 98 and voluntarily ordered to extended active duty on 24 Feb 98. In DPAMF2’s view, the credit is correctly stated, since he was not employed full time for a minimum of six months prior to taking an oath of office in the Reserve of the Air Force. TERRY A. YONKERS Panel Chair AFBCMR 98-01877 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF...
c. The Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) reviewed by the CY97C board reflect an overall recommendation of “Definitely Promote (DP).” 3. He was promoted by SSB to major with annotations on his top two OPRs, and subsequently promoted APZ to LTC with the AF Form 77 and four OPRs with annotations in his records. He contends, in part, that his unnecessary break in service and the annotated documents in his records caused the MLR board not to award him a “DP” on the CY97C PRF and the promotion...
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C) . RECOMMENDATION: None; -oes not have the required time on active duty to qualify for educational benefits through the Department of Veterans Affairs. The applicant is requesting her DD Form 214 to state that her discharge was for the good of the government.
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 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 BOARD DETERMINES THAT: A majority of the panel finds insufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommends the application be denied. A majority found that applicant had not provided substantial evidence of error or injustice and recommended the case be denied. While it is true that prior to his enlistment, the applicant signed a form indicating he had never used or experimented with marijuana or any dangerous drug...
The shipment had an origin net weight of 16,345 pounds. According to JPPSO, the applicant did not provide any information to support an error or injustice by transportation personnel that increased the weight of his HHG. At origin, the shipment had a net weight of 16,370 pounds.
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.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-01897 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His discharge be upgraded to honorable. They have no objection if the Board grants applicant’s request based on his overall personnel record. After reviewing the evidence of record, we are persuaded that applicant’s discharge should be upgraded.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-01900 INDEX CODE: 100 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: Yes _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His extended active duty (EAD) date be changed from 16 Mar 98 to 15 Mar 98 to allow him to request supplemental board consideration for promotion to the grade of captain. If his EAD was 15 Mar 98 instead of 16 Mar 98, he could request to...
On 31 July 1996, HQ ARPC/SGS recommended the applicant be administratively discharged for medical disqualification, i.e., neurological condition with residual speech disturbance, and that he was not eligible for disability processing under the provisions of AFI 36-3212, Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement and AFMPC/DPMA Separations. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Director, Health Services, HQ ARPC/SG, advises that major...
He further states being board eligible entitled him to specialty and incentive pays. In his presentation, the applicant claimed he believed he was entitled to receive Special Pay as a flight surgeon and any apparent deceit was merely a result of the confusion that exists Air Force-wide on the subject of Special Pay. Pursuant to an inquiry from the AFBCMR Staff, DFAS-FYCC informally advised that, in addition to the MSP/MISP bonuses, the applicant received the following special...
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The Statement of Understanding (AETC Form 1430) he signed on 16 August 1983 did not state that his graduation date would establish his pay and service dates, nor did AFR 36-15 (15 September 1981 version) state this. The applicant’s records were corrected to reflect the pay date and TFCSD of 13 May 1984 (his date of graduation) instead of 15 December 1983 (date he took oath of office). Applicant's...
B RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-01921 INDEX CODE 106.00 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His 1967 Under-Other-Than-Honorable-Conditions (UOTHC) discharge for the good of the service be changed to an honorable medical discharge. After a thorough review of the documents pertaining to this appeal, we are not persuaded...
DPPPA stated that both the Education/Training Report (TR) and MSM, 1OLC, were filed in the applicant’s Officer Selection Record (OSR) and considered by the P0597C central lieutenant colonel selection board. A complete copy of this evaluation is appended at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and indicated that it ignores his contention that his pre-board 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). 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 complete copy of the Record of Proceedings is attached at Exhibit D. In a letter dated 20 July 1999, applicant requests reconsideration in light of the supporting statement from the Reserve Advisor to DCS Operations, HQ USAF/XO-ARC. Based on the Reserve Advisor’s supporting statement, it appears that the request for his accelerated promotion to LTC was faxed to ARPC in sufficient time to be processed for the 30 October 1997 DOR. The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit...
In support of his request, applicant provided a copy of the contested report and supporting statements from the evaluators. DPPPA noted that the letters of support from the rating chain on the contested OER are dated some 15 years after the report became a matter of record. He stated that the statement from his rater is not simply a letter of support, but evidence for appeal - it states the situation, why the OER was marked incorrectly, and his (the rater’s) recommendation for its resolution.
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 Directorate of Personnel Program Management, HQ AFPC/DPPRRB, has administratively corrected the applicant’s place of entry on active duty to Chicago, IL (item 7a). As to the applicant’s separation date (Item 12b), although the date is correct, we note that DPPRRA discovered a discrepancy in the applicant’s service dates, which resulted in the applicant not completing 20 years of active duty service...
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.
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant’s response to the Air Force evaluation and a letter received from his physician are at Exhibit E. ___________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. The law governing the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) provides that a member who is married at the time of retirement and fails to...
A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Military Personnel Management Specialist, Separations Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, states that the case has been reviewed for separation processing and there are no errors or irregularities causing an injustice to the applicant. We note that prior to the applicant’s separation from the Air Force, she received a commander-directed mental health evaluation and was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed...
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 opinions 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.
Two of the women (Ms C--- and Ms H---) provided sworn statements. The BOO found that the applicant had committed the above-referenced acts of sexual perversion and recommended he be discharged for misconduct with a UOTHC discharge without P&R. The attached police reports show that Ms L--- committed perjury when she testified she was going to work.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-01959 INDEX CODE: 131, 131.01 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His nonselection for promotion to the grade of colonel by the Calendar Year 1997B (CY97B) (8 Dec 97) be set aside and he receive a direct promotion to the grade of colonel; or, in the alternative, he be granted Special Selection...
In a letter dated 13 August 1981, AFMPC/DOA1 advised the applicant of that fact and what he should do about any monetary claims he might have. If the Board should recommend relief, his DOS would have to be extended through 15 May 1962. In a letter dated 13 August 1981, AFMPC/DOA1 advised the applicant of that fact and what he should do about any monetary claims he might have.
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). Available Master Personnel Records C. Advisory Opinion D. AFBCMR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinion DEFENSE FINANCE AND ACCOUNTING SERVICE DENVER CENTER 6760 E. IRVINGTON PLACE DENVER, COLORADO 80279 DFAS- DE / FYCC MEMORANDUM FOR AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS ATTN: AFBCMR SUBJECT: Application for...
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.
His Duty Air Force Specialty Code (DAFSC) be corrected on his Officer Selection Brief (OSB) to read “32E4” versus “32E3G." On 17 April 1998 and 22 June 1998 the Unit Personnel Manpower Document (UPMR) and the UMD were corrected to reflect the correct DAFSC of “32E4." They therefore, believe the applicant’s DAFSC was correct when he was considered for promotion to the grade of major and his request is without merit.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-01976 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The applicant requests that his Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed to allow his immediate reenlistment. Therefore, we recommend his records be corrected to the extend indicated below. THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent 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). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). Applicant’s response is at Exhibit E. After careful consideration of applicant's request and the available evidence of record, we find insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant corrective action.
The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied applicant's request on 16 October 1998. The AFDRB brief 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’s counsel and 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...
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit B). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit C). 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.
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant's military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Military Personnel Division, AFRC/DPM, reviewed this application and states that if the applicant reimburses her civilian...
On 3 Jan 45, the Report of Proceedings of the Board of Officers findings were that the applicant gave evidence of traits of character other than those indicating discharge for physical or mental conditions as provided for in Section II (he was unfit to associate with enlisted men). Based on information contained in applicant’s application, information contained in the Discharge Board proceedings and applicant’s master personnel records, DPPRS finds no new evidence to indicate his discharge,...
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON, DC El3 1 8 1999 Office of the Assistant Secretary AFBCMR 98-01995 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 pertinen Force relating to show that he was p class effective and...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-02002 INDEX CODE: 131 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be considered for promotion to the grade of colonel, with a corrected Officer Selection Brief (OSB), by special selection board (SSB) for the Calendar Year 1998A (CY98A) Central Colonel Selection Board. A copy of the Air Force...
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 Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied applicant's request on 18 September 1998. The AFDRB brief 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 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 Enlisted Promotion & Military Testing Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, stated that based on the applicant’s date of rank (DOR) for senior master sergeant (E-8), the first time the contested report will be considered in the promotion process is Cycle 98E9 to chief master sergeant (E-9), promotions effective Jan 99 - Dec 99. A copy of this evaluation is appended at Exhibit C. The Directorate of Personnel...
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). 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 applicant was discharged from the Air Force on 1 March 1955.
ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-02028 INDEX CODE: 110 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to general, under honorable conditions or honorable. Although the applicant has provided some statements concerning his employment and a letter from his former co-worker, a majority...
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.