He was promoted to the grade of master sergeant (E-7) with a date of rank and effective date of 1 March 1993. On 27 May 1996, the applicant was discharged from the Air Force Reserve and on 28 May 1996, he enlisted in the Regular Air Force, in the grade of staff sergeant, for a period of four years. A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the advisory opinions and states that it has...
STATEMENT OF FACTS: The Air Force indicated that on 11 Dec 98, the applicant reenlisted in the Regular Air Force for a period of four years and did not receive an SRB. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Skills Management Branch, AFPC/DPPAE, reviewed this application and indicated that at the time of applicant’s reenlistment, neither he nor the Military Personnel Flight (MPF) had any reason to believe his AFSC would get an SRB. After reviewing the applicant’s submission and the evidence of...
INDEX CODE: 100.07, 134.02 AFBCMR 99-00606 ADDENDUM TO MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION BEFORE THE AFBCMR SUBJECT: APPLICANT 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...
Finally, if the applicant remains a senior airman, he may or may not be allowed to reenlist when his current enlistment expires. For example, under AFI 36-2606, Reenlistment in the United States Air Force, paragraph 1.13, he may appeal any denial of reenlistment to the Secretary of the Air Force. A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and provided a three-page response (see Exhibit F).
On 13 September 1995, he reenlisted for three years, which established his date of separation (DOS) as 12 September 1998. d. At the time of his enlistment on 7 July 1998, he was entitled to a Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB), Zone B, Multiple 1.5, with obligated service through 12 September 1998. d. At the time of his enlistment on 7 July 1998, he was entitled to a Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB), Zone B, Multiple 1.5, with obligated service through 12 September 1998.
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 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.
: 108.08 HEARING DESIRED: NO Applicant requests that AF Form 356 (Findings and Recommended Disposition of USAF Physical Evaluation Board), dated 22 June 1994, be corrected to reflect that his injury was caused by an “instrumentality of war” and that his disability rating be increased from 40 to 50 percent to coincide with his current Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) ratings. The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board...
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). After careful consideration of applicant's request and the available evidence of record, we find insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant corrective action.
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinions were forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). Applicant’s response to the advisory opinion is at Exhibit E. After careful consideration of applicant's request and the available evidence of record, we find insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant corrective action.
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinions were forwarded to the applicant 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 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.
Apply three (3) points credit for the AFCM, 1OLC, to overall promotion score for cycle 96E7 and retroactively promote him to master sergeant for promotion cycle 96E7 and retire him in the grade of master sergeant, effective 30 Apr 97, with all back pay and allowances. This decoration does not meet the criteria for promotion credit during the 96E7 cycle because the RDP date is 5 Dec 96, after selections were made on 25 May 96 for the 96E7 cycle. After reviewing the evidence of record 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). 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.
Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Clarksburg, WV, provided a copy of a FBI Identification Record, which is attached at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Associate Chief, Military Justice Division, AFLSA/JAJM, reviewed this application and recommended that the Board, as a matter of clemency, grant the applicant relief by upgrading his dishonorable discharge to a bad conduct discharge. ...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-00660 INDEX CODE: 110.00 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The narrative reason for her separation from the Air Force be changed. A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Military Personnel Management Specialist, Separations Branch, AFPC/DPPRS,...
On 3 Mar 97, the discharge authority approved the discharge action and directed that the applicant be furnished a UOTHC discharge. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Military Justice Division, AFLSA/JAJM, reviewed this application and concluded that the administrative relief of removal of the 16 Aug 96 record of the nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 from the applicant’s records was not warranted. A complete copy of the DPPRS...
DFAS EVALUATION: The Chief, Claims Branch, DFAS-DE/FYCC, reviewed this appeal and advised that $594.94 of the original $2,382.94 debt was remitted, leaving a remaining debt of $1,788.00. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that his HHG debt should be remitted. He has not provided persuasive evidence demonstrating that either the original or remaining debt is in error or unjust and should be remitted in its entirety.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-00678 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His narrative reason for separation be changed in order to expedite the process of his reenlistment. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Military Personnel Management Spec Separations Branch, AFPC/DPPRS, reviewed the application and states that they concur with...
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). 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 13 Apr 99, the Chief, Awards & Decorations Section, AFPC/DPPPR, requested the applicant provide a copy of his Travel Voucher in order to verify the location and inclusive dates of his TDY in support of Operation Desert Shield. 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 copy of his Travel Voucher. The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A....
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed this application and indicated that the first time the contested report was considered in the promotion process was cycle 97E9 to chief master sergeant (promotions effective Jan 98 - Dec 98). However, if the Board upgrades the decoration as requested, it could direct supplemental promotion consideration for cycle 98E9. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation...
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). Accordingly, applicant's request is denied.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-00713 INDEX NUMBER: 137.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Applicant is the widow of the former servicemember who requests correction of her husband’s records to reflect he elected survivor coverage in her behalf under the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) and that the debt for the monthly premiums that would have accrued from the time of his retirement until his...
Under our broader mandate and after careful consideration of all the facts and circumstances of applicant's case, the Board is persuaded that applicant has been a productive member of society since leaving the service. THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that on 21 Jan 60, he was discharged with service characterized as general (under honorable conditions). JOSEPH G. DIAMOND Panel...
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.
He provided the correct date to the Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC) but the problem was not fixed until after he signed the contract. If the Board grants the application, the records should be corrected to show an initial UPT ADSC of 31 July 1997. ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Aviation Continuation Pay Program, stated that the purpose of the advisory opinion, dated 14 September 1999, was to offer the applicant the opportunity to enter into an ACP agreement.
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 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: 99-00756 INDEX CODE: 131.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Officer Selection Brief (OSB) prepared for consideration by the CY98C (P0698C) Below-The-Zone (BPZ) Central Colonel Board, which convened on 1 Dec 98, be amended in the "Assignment History" section to reflect the duty title of “DMS Implementation Manager," with an effective date of 26 Jun 97, and...
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinions were forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). 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.
On 1 Feb 89, the applicant retired under the provisions of AFR 35-7 (Voluntary-Retirement For Years of Service Established By Law) with an honorable characterization of service in the grade of staff sergeant. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Special Programs Section, AFPC/DPPRRP, reviewed this application and indicated that Section 8961, Title 10, USC, states, “Unless entitled to a higher retired grade under some other provision of law, a Regular or Reserve of the Air Force....who retires other...
The applicant had not requested supplemental promotion consideration for promotion to master sergeant (MSgt) and, by the time his case was considered, he had retired on 1 Jul 99 in the grade of TSgt with 21 years and 4 days of active service. A complete copy of the Record of Proceedings is attached at Exhibit E. On 9 Feb 00, the applicant submitted an addendum to his original appeal. Mr. Wheeler voted to include the AM for consideration in the TSgt and MSgt promotion cycles with subsequent...
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.
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Director, Personnel Accountability, AFPC/DPW, reviewed the application and states that in their opinion, had the applicant wanted $10,000 coverage, he would have visited his Military Personnel Flight (MPF), accomplished a new election form and ensured that proper premiums were deducted monthly by his Accounting and Finance Office. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and...
Afterwards, he was informed that if he had chosen to extend for one month at his previous assignment until his formal retraining that he would have been scored in the AFSC 3P051. If he had been scored in the AFSC 3P051 he would have been promoted. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant's military records, are contained in the documents provided by the applicant and the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force.
JOE G. LINEBERGER Director Air Force Review Boards Agency RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-00804 INDEX CODE: 107.00 APPLICANT COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her deceased brother be awarded the Bronze Star Medal (BSM) and Purple Heart (PH) Medal. Evidence presented by the applicant appears to indicate that her brother's death was the direct result of injuries he received at the hands of...
Applicant provided copies of his DD Form 214 and orders for Operations Desert Storm, Provide Promise, and Provide Comfort (Exhibit A). Effective 7 January 1998, Applicant’s name was removed from the TDRL and he was permanently retired in the grade of E-5 with a compensable disability rating of 50%. Applicant’s DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, shows that he served in support of Desert Shield/Storm from 2 August 1990 - 12 July 1996.
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). Accordingly, applicant's request is denied.
However, if the Board decides to promote the applicant to SRA, then the RE code should be changed to “3K” (Reserved for use by HQ AFPC or the AFBCMR when no other RE code applies or is appropriate). In an earlier case, the applicant requested that two Article 15s be removed from his records. With the removal of the Article 15s and his promotion to SRA, the “4E” code he received is no longer correct.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-00837 INDEX CODE 100.01 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Military records be changed to reflect the current legal name and gender of “?? A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. The Records Procedures Branch, HQ AFPC/DPSRP, reviewed the case and provided two letters to the applicant, essentially advising that the name change was effected by AF Form...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-00847 INDEX CODE: 107.00 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded the Purple Heart Medal. Although applicant did not provide medical documentation that his injuries required or received treatment by medical personnel, we are satisfied with the explanation provided by the applicant that he was treated in France by an...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Physician Education Branch, HQ AFPC/DPAME, reviewed this application and states that applicant signed her Health Professions Scholarship Program Contract (HPSP), thereby agreeing to the terms of the contract. Thus, by reports or physical examination required by the service, with results known to the service, the service in 1987 and again in 1989 knew of applicant’s endometriosis and further...
The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied applicant's request on 30 September 1999. 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.
A complete copy of the Record of Proceedings is attached at Exhibit C (with Exhibit A). Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit D. Applicant provided a response to the FBI report, which is attached at Exhibit G. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: In earlier findings, we determined that there was insufficient evidence to warrant any corrective action regarding the applicant’s request for upgrade of his undesirable discharge. ...
Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E. THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. After reviewing the evidence of record and the documentation submitted with this appeal, we note that other than his own assertions, the applicant has provided no evidence indicating he was treated differently from other Air Force members in the Joint Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training Program. In fact, it appears that the applicant was given every opportunity to succeed in pilot training, having been entered...
The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied applicant's request on 25 May 2000. 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 AFDRB brief and advisory opinion were forwarded to applicant for review and response (Exhibit E).
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 report was forwarded for senior rater endorsement and signed, dated 14 June 1997. The reaccomplished EPR should be removed from his record and replaced with the initial EPR signed and dated 2 June 1997, which accurately reflected his duty performance during the period in question. EVALUATION: The Chief, Inquiries, AFBCMR Section, Enlisted Promotion & Military Testing Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed this application and states that the first time the report was considered in the...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Recognition Programs Branch, AFPC/DPPPR, reviewed this application and indicated that although no documentation has been provided showing the reason for the delay in awarding the AAM, 2OLC, and no copy of the recommendation package was provided, the decoration was processed and awarded within the time limits required. Current Air Force promotion policy (AFI 36-2502, Table 2.2, Rule 5, Note 2)...