On 04 May 2000, the applicant appeared and testified, with counsel, before the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB). Evidence of record reflects that the applicant’s bad conduct discharge was upgraded by the Air Force Discharge Review Board to under other than honorable conditions on the basis of clemency. Exhibit C. AFDRB Hearing Record, dated 18 May 00.
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 Air Force Office of Special Investigation (OSI) Report of Investigation (ROI) reveals that an investigation was initiated based on information that the applicant allegedly raped a female Air Force member on 6 Apr 97, in violation of Article 120, UCMJ. Action Authority must provide AFOSI with a Report of Action Taken and evidence disposition instructions.” On 20 Oct 97, applicant was notified of his commander's intent to impose nonjudicial punishment on him under Article 15, UCMJ. ...
A complete copy of the ANG/DPPU evaluation is at Exhibit E. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: By letter, dated 14 Jul 00, counsel provided a response amending the requested relief, which is attached at Exhibit G. THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. However, we do not find the applicant’s assertions and the documentation presented in support of his appeal sufficiently persuasive to override the findings of a DOD IG Investigation, which concluded that the applicant’s removal from his...
Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. In the absence of any documentation in his records reflecting a promotion to technical sergeant, DPPPWB indicated that they must assume the applicant was retired in his proper grade. A complete copy of the DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reiterated that he has been unfairly treated and passed over for promotion in the military.
In the alternative, his records be corrected to show he was retired because of physical disability with a compensable rating of 30% effective 8 Jul 97. In support of his application, the applicant provided a brief by counsel expanding on the foregoing contentions; his performance records; records associated with his participation in the Weight Management Program (WMP) and the demotion action; and extracts from his medical records. The board recommended that the applicant’s case be referred...
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: 99-00960 INDEX CODE 131.01 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be reconsidered for Intermediate Service School (ISS) candidacy by Special Selection Board (SSB) for the Calendar Year 1998B (CY98B) Major Central Selection Board with the Officer Performance Report (OPR) closing 3 April 1998 included in his selection folder, and the CY98B Officer Selection Brief...
On 30 Jan 98, the applicant was given an entry level separation from the Air National Guard and as a Reserve of the Air Force under the provisions of AFI 36-3209 (Erroneous Enlistment). After a thorough review of the available evidence, we are not persuaded that the applicant’s entry level separation based on the termination of her initial active duty training should be changed to a disability discharge. Therefore, we recommend that the applicant’s narrative reason for separation from the...
Since the AFBCMR Directive returning him to active duty was voided, the Jan 99 SSB never existed. Based upon the evidence submitted, he believes the AFBCMR Directive, dated 15 Sep 98, should be reinstated, his records corrected and he receive SSB consideration for promotion to major. c. As to the issue of the P0494A Selection Board, the Board majority noted the comments from the Air Force (HQ AFPC/DPPPA) indicating that the applicant is not eligible for promotion consideration by 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). 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.
In accordance with policy, the application was forwarded to this Board for further consideration (Exhibit C). The AFDRB brief was forwarded to applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). The decision of the AFDRB appears to be based on the evidence of record and have not been rebutted by applicant.
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 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.
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request concerning the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal 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...
The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied the applicant’s request for upgrade of her discharge and change of reason for her separation (Exhibit C). The AFDRB Brief was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). The decision of the AFDRB appears to be based on the evidence of record and has not been rebutted by applicant.
In June 96, the Florida Air National Guard Selective Retention Review Board (SRRB or Retention Board) decided to terminate his Air National Guard military membership, effective 31 Dec 96. The Board recognizes the applicant’s contributions to the Air National Guard, however, we find no evidence to support a finding that the decision to non-retain the applicant was not in accordance with the guidelines of the Selective Retention Program. The following members of the Board considered this...
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). Applicant and 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...
DPPPA notes the applicant provided several copies of performance feedbacks given since she came on active duty. In addition to the two performance feedbacks noted on the contested EPR, DPPPA notes the rater also completed a PFW on 19 May 93 in which he complimented her on her initiatives to keep up with her training. After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record, we are persuaded that the contested report is not an accurate reflection of applicant’s performance during the time period...
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: 99-01016 INDEX NUMBER: 107.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS: (1) Relief from the provisions of the “pay cap” of 5 USC 5532(c) as applied to his compensation; or, if not granted or if not within the jurisdiction of the Board, (2) An option to relinquish his retirement from the Air Force and to elect either (a) the Voluntary Separation Incentive (VSI) or (b) the...
The Reserve Order, dated 6 May 98, assigning the applicant to the numbered MSS showed an R/R date of 18 Sep. After an audit of his Master Personnel Record, his R/R date was changed to 22 Sep. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that he should be awarded five non-pay points for R/R year 22 Sep 97 to 21 Sep 98 in order to have this year credited as a good year toward retirement. We therefore agree with the recommendation of the...
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board (Exhibit C). The advisory opinions were forwarded to the applicant/counsel for review and response (Exhibit D). The facts and opinions stated in the advisory opinions appear to be based on the available evidence of record and have not been rebutted by applicant.
Applicant's EPR profile follows: PERIOD ENDING EVALUATION 6 Oct 95 3 * 6 Oct 96 3 * Contested report On 11 Aug 97, Applicant was notified that her commander was recommending she be discharged with service characterized as general for minor disciplinary infractions. As a result of the administrative discharge action on 11 Aug 97, the applicant was also ineligible for promotion. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant...
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). The facts and opinions stated in the advisory opinions appear to be based on the evidence of record and have not been rebutted by applicant.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-01050 COUNSEL: JANE C. NORMAN HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to reflect removal of any reference to the suspension, limitation and revocation of credentials. Counsel’s complete response and additional documentary evidence, including the applicant’s personal statement, are at Exhibit F. ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Pursuant to the Board’s...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-02067 INDEX CODE: 110.02 XXXXXX COUNSEL: None XXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: No APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, Character of Service be changed to honorable, the separation code and reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed to eligible reenlistment codes and narrative reason for separation be removed completely. A complete...
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 Board staff is directed to inform applicant of this decision.
The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied applicant's request on 15 September 1999. The decision of the AFDRB 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.
Applicant submits a statement from Senior rater, stating at the time he wrote the applicant's PRF for the 0498B Line AF Major's Central Selection Board and ACCs MLR Board, he did not have all the information needed for a complete assessment of his promotion potential. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Appeals and SSB Branch, Directorate of Personnel Program Mgt, AFPC/DPPPA, reviewed the application and states that the applicant contends the...
Accordingly, we find that corrective action is appropriate as a matter of equity and on the basis of clemency and recommend the discharge be upgraded to honorable. Exhibit B. CHARLENE M. BRADLEY Panel Chair AFBCMR 99-01084 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...
STATEMENT OF FACTS: When a member fails to complete a valid SBP election prior to retirement, the Defense Finance and Accounting Service - Cleveland Center (DFAS-CL) automatically establishes coverage for all the retiree’s eligible beneficiaries by operation of law. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Retiree Activities Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPTR, advises that the applicant’s SBP coverage was established by DFAS-CL in accordance with the law, but could have been corrected administratively at the...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-01087 INDEX CODE: 112.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed from 2P to a favorable code. Therefore, recommend his record be corrected accordingly. Exhibit B.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-07088 INDEX CODE: 110.02, 110.03 XXXXXX COUNSEL: None XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: No APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The reason for his discharge be change to Convenience of the Government, the reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed to RE-1 with a corresponding separation program designator. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Military Personnel...
However, when they corrected the report, they removed the midterm feedback date but neglected to remove the initial feedback date from Section V (Rater’s Comments). On 7 February 2000, the Evaluation Reports Appeal Section, AFPC/DPPPAE, administratively corrected the contested EPR and removed the erroneous initial feedback date of “25 August 1996,” and inserted the statement “Ratee has established that feedback wasn’t provided IAW AFI 36- 2403.” The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated...
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.
The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied applicant's request on 24 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.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-01112 INDEX CODE: 100.00, 111.01, 131.00 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be provided promotion reconsideration by the Calendar Year 1998C (CY98C) (1 Dec 98) Central Colonel Board with corrections to his officer selection brief (OSB) and his Officer Effectiveness Report (OER) rendered for the period 13 May 83 through 12 May 84. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The...
The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied applicant's request on 3 Dec 99 (Exhibit C). 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 office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). The facts and opinions stated in the advisory opinion appear to be based on the evidence of record and have not been rebutted by applicant.
The appropriate Air Force 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 majority concludes, therefore, that the discharge proceedings were proper and characterization of the discharge was clearly appropriate to the existing circumstances. RICHARD A. PETERSON Panel Chair MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS FROM: SAF/MIB SUBJECT: I have carefully considered the rationale of the majority members of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR); however, I agree with the minority member...
AFBCMR 99-01142 Index Number: 137.00 MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION BEFORE THE AFBCMR SUBJECT: APPLICANT Having carefully reviewed this application, we agree with the recommendation of the Air Force 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 the accompanying Memorandum...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-01147 INDEX CODE: 110.02 XXXXXX COUNSEL: None XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: No APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed from “2C” to be able to reenlist at some future time. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Military Personnel Mgmt Spec Separations...
The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied the applicant’s request for upgrade of his discharge (Exhibit C). 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 Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied applicant's request for upgrade of his general discharge and to change his RE code on 30 August 1999 (Exhibit C). The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request concerning the RE code and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit D). The decision of the AFDRB and the advisory opinion were forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit E).
Reasons for the commander’s recommendation was that the applicant made a signed statement to the Air Force Office of Special Investigations (OSI) indicating his homosexual involvement with another male member. On 14 August 1959, he was discharged in the grade of airman second class, under the provisions of AFR 39-17 (Unfitness - Homosexual), receiving an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit...
We note the dependency for the applicant’s mother was not approved until after the PCS to Indian Springs was cancelled. Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 24 May 99. JOSEPH G. DIAMOND Panel Chair AFBCMR 99-01161 MEMORANDUM FOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR) SUBJECT: XXXXXXXXXX, XXXXXXXXXX By a majority vote, the Board recommended that the applicant’s request for reimbursement in the amount of $6,667.28 for expenses incurred in moving his...
The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied applicant's request on 12 Apr 99. The decision of the AFDRB 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.