In accordance with his rights under Article 15, UCMJ and AFI 51-202, applicant requested through his military counsel, to review all the evidence that the commander considered in deciding whether to impose the non-judicial punishment. If he was provided a review of the complete investigation, he and his attorneys would have been able to provide specific credible rebuttal to the specific allegations of misconduct, that ultimately boiled down to a “solicitation.” Regulations have not been...
___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Retired Pay Operations, DFAS-CL/FRAB, stated that the Jul-Aug and Nov-Dec 1980 issues of the Afterburner contained information regarding disenrollment from SBP upon being rated totally disabled by the VA for a period of ten years. The applicant has presented no information that he did not receive these issues of the Afterburner. Furthermore, the 81-82 SBP open enrollment information package,...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-03304 INDEX CODE 107.00 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His DD Form 214 reflect receipt of the following awards: 1. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His DD Form 214 was up to date when he separated on 22 December 1997. His request for...
ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-03341 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO RESUME OF CASE: In an application dated 24 November 1998, the applicant requested that her discharge be changed to a permanent disability retirement with a disability rating of over 30%. The results of the examination were referred to the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB). We have reviewed the results of the evaluations and...
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.
After careful review of the package requesting the Article 15, dated 11 July 1997, not be placed in the applicant’s Selection Record, the commander recommended that the Article 15 action be placed in his Selection Record. Therefore, in a letter dated 28 July 1997, the applicant’s set-aside request was denied. A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief Medical Consultant, AFBCMR, reviewed the application and states that as the legal review cited, the applicant has...
The evidence also establishes the deceased member’s efforts to provide the applicant with all the benefits she was entitled to as the spouse of a retired service member. Microfiche records verify SBP enrollment packets and newsletters were mailed to the address the decedent provided to the finance center during the 1981-1982 and 1992-1993 open enrollment periods. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that 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’s counsel 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.
Qualification criteria for entry, award, and retention of “3P0X2” at that time stated, “Never been convicted by a general, special, or summary courts- martial.” On 10 January 1998, applicant’s Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD) was remitted. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Staff Judge Advocate, AFPC/JA, also reviewed this application and states that the applicant has not proven the existence of an error or injustice relating to his removal from the...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Reports & Queries Section, AFPC/DPAPS1, reviewed this application and indicated that the reviewer for the OPR closing 31 Dec 94 signed as Commander of the USAF Air Warfare Center so “Center” is the correct duty command level for this duty entry. This OPR clearly shows that the duty title was incorrect on the OPB for the 950701 entry; therefore, DPAPS1 changed the duty title for this entry in...
As a result, the commander gave the applicant an LOR, initiated an unfavorable information file (UIF) and recommended that his name be removed from the promotion list in accordance with AFI 36-2504. Air Mobility Wing (AMW) Public Affairs Office commander did not put pressure on the applicant to remove the female individual and that the applicant should have stressed the professionalism of his office staff and not allowed the closeness and familiarity of his staff to get out of control. 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 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.
Members of the Board, Mr. Henry Romo, Jr., Mr. Laurence M. Groner, and Mr. John E. Pettit, considered this application on 26 October 2000. Panel Chair Attachment: Ltr, HQ ARPC/DPBB, dtd 24 Jun 00 AFBCMR 99-00099 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code, and 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...
Members of the Board, Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Dr. Gerald B. Kauvar, and Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, considered this application on 23 August 2000. Charlene M. Bradley Panel Chair Attachment: Ltr, HQ ARPC/DPBB, dtd 24 Jun 00 AFBCMR 99-00099 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code, and Air Force Instruction 36-2603, and having assured compliance with the provisions of the above regulation, the decision of the Air Force Board for...
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's requests and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinions were forwarded to the applicant’s last two known addresses for review and response (Exhibit D). After careful consideration of applicant's remaining requests and the available evidence of record, we find insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant further corrective action.
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request concerning the nonjudicial punishments 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 request concerning the nonjudicial punishments 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 F. On 2 February 2000, an additional document was submitted and his case was reopened. We cannot detect any errors concerning the processing of this EPR and without more information concerning why the report was not deserved, we find no basis upon which to recommend voidance of the EPR closing 16 November 1992 from applicant’s records. The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-00141 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The reason for her separation be changed to “Secretarial Authority.” APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Medical test results indicated no medical intervention and data gathered could not substantiate any disorder; she was returned to active duty. THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the...
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The Article 15 is invalid because it was imposed after the 2-year statute of limitations for such; the contested OPR is also invalid because he did not work for the rater for the required 120-days of supervision; and the discharge should be upgraded due to the inconsistencies under which it was given. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant's military records, are contained in the letters prepared by...
The entry-level characterization of service, unfortunately, cannot be changed, as individuals are considered in an entry level status for the first 6 months of service and any separation which occurs during this period of time will receive an “uncharacterized entry level separation.” The BCMR Medical Consultant is of the opinion that, the reason for discharge on the applicant’s DD Form 214 should be changed to “Medical condition, not a disability,” removing the “Failed...
The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. The Chief of the Promotions Eligibility Division, Reserve of the Air Force Selection Board Secretariat, AFRC/DPBA, reviewed this application and confirmed that the applicant was not eligible to meet the first Captains selection board after he transferred to the Air Force Reserves on 15 Aug 98. Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, undated JOSEPH G. DIAMOND Panel Chair MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS...
On 23 Jan 96, the applicant requested that he be discharged from the Air Force effective 12 Feb 96. By law, a claim must be filed within three years of the date of discovery of the alleged error or injustice. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that he should be retired from active duty, effective 1 Feb 96, with an honorable discharge or that the contested report should be removed from his 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.
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 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: 99-00238 INDEX CODE: 108.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The reason for his discharge be changed to “Medical Discharge Under Honorable Conditions.” APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Since the prescription medicines he was taking would surely preclude his serving further in the Air Force, he accepted the discharge and returned to civilian life. AIR FORCE...
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 and counsel 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.
She provides medical records that she believes indicate her ex-husband was treated for injuries consistent with a driver of an automobile in a head-on collision. The records also indicate that the injuries were sustained in a motor vehicle accident and that he was the possible driver. Also, in a Social Work Service report from applicant’s medical records, dated 31 January 1996, a social worker noted: “MVA [Motor Vehicle Accident] New Year’s Eve was patient’s 3rd DWI [Driving While...
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Upon her late husband’s retirement, he completed the SBP Election Certificate and elected Option A to decline to make an election at that time, but to remain eligible to make an election for coverage at age 60. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that her late husband’s records should be modified to allow participation in the RCSBP. The following members of the Board considered this application...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-00344 COUNSEL: HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be reinstated in an Active Guard/Reserve (AGR) position retroactive to 24 July 1998, with back pay and allowances, and processed through the Air Force Disability Evaluation System (DES). The LOD form should be taken to the nearest active duty treatment facility so that a new Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) can...
Applicant was not selected by either board. A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit E. REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 19 April 1999 for review and response. 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...
INDEX CODE: 137.00, 137.04 AFBCMR 99-00355 MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION BEFORE THE AFBCMR SUBJECT: Having carefully reviewed this application, we agree with the recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has been the victim of either an error or an injustice. Therefore, under the authority delegated in AFI 36-2603, the applicant's records will be corrected as set forth in...
Exhibit B. Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 9 Jun 99, w/BCMR response. RICHARD A. PETERSON Panel Chair AFBCMR 99-00364 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that he...
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant and counsel for review and response (Exhibit D). Counsel'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 AFDRB concluded that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority and that the applicant was provided full administrative due process. In addition, the DD Form 214 on file in the applicant’s personnel record was reissued as a result of the AFDRB decision and is correct. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded...
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). Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.
On 21 Feb 57, the applicant was discharged from the Air Force in the grade of airman basic under the provisions of AFR 39-17 (Unfitness) with an undesirable discharge. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Military Personnel Management Specialist, AFPC/DPPRS, reviewed this application and indicated that the applicant did not identify any specific errors in the discharge proceedings nor provide facts warranting an upgrade of the discharge he received. Exhibit B.
On 27 Jul 96, the applicant sent correspondence to the Secretary of the Air Force with recommendations regarding air safety in the Air Force and the investigation of air accidents. As stated above, under the circumstances and with the facts as they existed at that time, we do not believe that the IO findings were in error. RICHARD A. PETERSON Panel Chair MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military...
On 12 Jun 73, the deceased member submitted an SBP election statement during the initial enrollment period, declining coverage. Public Law (PL) 92-425, which established SBP on 21 Sep 72, authorized an 18-month enrollment period for retired members to elect SBP coverage. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that her late husband’s records should be corrected to show that he elected SBP coverage for her.
Applicant requests the DD Form 215 reflect the Good Conduct Medal, Marksmanship Badge with Pistol Bar, Air Crew Member Aviation Badge, and Aircraft Maintenance Badge. The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's remaining 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).
_________________________________________________________________ RESUME OF CASE: On 30 Sep 99, the Board considered and denied applicant’s request (Exhibit F). On 9 Mar 00 (Exhibit G), in an undated letter (Exhibit H), and on 25 Apr 00 (Exhibit I), applicant provided additional documentation and requests the Board reconsider her application. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-00512 INDEX NUMBER: 100.07 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED Applicant requests that her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be corrected to show her Technical School Training. 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...
A complete copy of the DPPP evaluation is at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant indicated that the central consideration in this appeal is whether the many approved official changes to his records, as documented by himself and the MLR President, is sufficient to allow the promotion recommendation to be raised from “Promote” to “Definitely Promote.” The Senior Rater and MLR President contend that it is definitely sufficient, and they are the ones that should...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Evaluation Programs Branch, AFPC/DPPPE, reviewed this application and indicated that applicant has no support from the wing commander (and additional rater on the OPR) or either of the senior raters that prepared the contested PRFs (Note: The senior rater that prepared the CY96B PRF was also the reviewer of the contested OPR). A complete copy of their evaluation, with attachments, is...
After notification, the applicant provided a statement explaining his problems with the AMWAY solicitation and his weight. The Chief recommended applicant’s retirement as a 1LT. AC-XXXXXX, dated 29 Jan 96, directed that, effective 29 Feb 96, the applicant would be relieved from active duty and retired effective 1 Mar 96 in the grade of captain.
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). Applicant's response to the advisory opinion is at 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's counsel 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.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-00584 (Case 2) INDEX CODE: 100.07 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: It appears the applicant is requesting that his elimination from the Fixed- Wing Qualification Training Course (F-V5A-Q) be removed from his records. On 18 Nov 92, the XXst Flying Training Wing (FTW) commander concurred with the FEB’s findings and recommendations that the applicant should be...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Personnel Operations Branch, ANG/DPFO, reviewed the additional information submitted and indicated that they are unable to administratively correct the applicant’s military records. The applicant has produced a number of supportive statements from high-level ANG and Air Force officers who support his request. Exhibit G. Letter, ANG/DPFO, dated 4 Aug 00.
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, indicates that the applicant will have sufficient time prior to his DOS to be promoted to A1C, provided he is otherwise eligible. A copy of the complete evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C. The Staff Judge Advocate (SJA), HQ APFC/JA, asserts that the purpose of suspending the applicant’s BCD for one year was to ensure that the rehabilitative programs of the RTDP were successful. After a thorough review of the evidence of...
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.