The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied applicant's request on 25 Oct 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 Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied applicant’s request for an upgrade in her discharge on 1 February 1995. The records indicate the member’s military service was reviewed and appropriate action was taken. THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that on 23 August 1989, she was honorably discharged and furnished an Honorable Discharge Certificate.
The relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force. Because there is no evidence in the applicant's records that indicate he had been injured as a direct result of enemy action, DPPPR recommends the application be denied (see Exhibit C). The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 13 Jul 00, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair Ms....
If his EAD time between service dates was calculated on the amount of actual days served, his TAFMSD would be 1 July 1981 and he would be eligible for promotion consideration for the 01E7 cycle. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant's military records and AFI 36-2604, are contained in the letters prepared by the applicant and the appropriate offices of the Air Force. A copy of the complete evaluation, with attachment, is at...
AIR FORCE RESERVE EVALUATION: The Director of Personnel Program Management, HQ ARPC/DPP, reviewed the application and states that the applicant should have been assigned to Inactive Status List Reserve Section (ISLRS) on 25 Mar 95, which would have rendered her ineligible to meet the Fiscal Year 1996 (FY96) Reserve of the Air Force (ResAF) Major Selection Board. However, the Reserves have advised that the applicant should have been assigned to ISLRS on 25 Mar 95, which means she was...
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.
He was charged 15 days of leave for the period 25 January through 9 February 1999. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 3 September 1999 for review and comment within 30 days. However, when he reported for duty on 9 February 1999, he was charged 15 days of leave.
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). 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 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). Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.
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.
He then received a third court-martial conviction for failure to go. The records indicate member’s military service was reviewed and appropriate action was taken. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and states that after receiving what he was told to be a general discharge, because of financial and family problems, he went to flight school.
Applicant’s EPR profile follows: Period Ending Evaluation 7 Feb 95 5 7 Feb 96 4 7 Feb 97 4 AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant reviewed this entire case file and determined that the applicant had appropriate evaluation and care prior to his separation from the military and that he did not exhibit symptoms of disorders for which he is currently being treated. A copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed...
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 was 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.
At the time the applicant was considered for promotion to the grade of colonel by the CY98C board, the DMSM was reflected on his OSB but the citation was missing from his officer selection record (OSR). The reports outline what is missing from an officer’s OSR and request that the MPF notify the member and provide copies to AFPC for filing in the OSR prior to the board convening date. Even though the DMSM (Basic) citation was not on file in the OSR when the board convened, they knew of its...
` RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-01235 INDEX CODE 108.01 108.02 xxxxxxxxxxx COUNSEL: None xxxxxxxxxxx HEARING DESIRED: No APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her medical records and fainting episodes be evaluated by a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) as if she were still on active duty. A copy of the complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. The Chief, Aerospace Medicine Division, HQ AFRC/SGP, also reviewed the case and indicates...
The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied applicant's request on 3 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.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-01246 INDEX NUMBER: 100.00 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No Applicant requests that the following items be corrected on his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty: 8c (Home of Record), 16b (Primary Related Civilian Occupation and D.O.T. The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's requests and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending...
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinions 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.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-01255 INDEX NUMBER: 100.05; 131.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) closing 24 Mar 1995 and 14 Jan 1996, be changed to reflect the instructor prefix “K” on his Duty Air Force Specialty Code (DAFSC) of 12B3B; the DAFSCs of 12B3B in the Assignment History section of his Officer Selection Briefs (OSBs) for the Calendar...
He planned on serving his entire active duty service commitment (ADSC) to repay his financial obligation to the United States. He was prevented from entering active duty by action of the Air Force. In honestly reporting his medical condition, he was not trying to get out of active duty.
Therefore, DPPPAB recommended the Board direct the removal of the mid-term feedback date from the contested EPR and add the following statement: “Ratee has established that no mid-term feedback session was provided in accordance with AFI 36-2403.” A complete copy of this evaluation is appended at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on 10 Sep 99 for review and response. The mid-term feedback date be removed...
The applicant provided a rebuttal dated 23 Feb 99. Based on the applicant’s appeal and at the request of HQ AFMC/DO, HQ AFMC/JA performed another legal review on 12 Mar 99 and concluded that the FEB findings and recommendations were legally sufficient and recommended denial of the applicant’s request for a new FEB. A review of the FEB transcripts and exhibits by HQ AFMC/JA shows no reason to believe that the board did not properly weigh all testimony presented in this case.
A complete copy of the DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant reviewed the advisory opinions and furnished responses and additional documentary evidence which are attached at Exhibit G. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Skills Management Branch, AFPC/DPPAE, reviewed the...
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Undergraduate Flying Operations, Headquarters 19th Air Force/DOU, also reviewed the applicant’s records and provides the following comments: A. Based on the informed evaluations of his instructors, 19th AF/DOU supports the 71st OG/CC decision to eliminate applicant from JSUPT. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that he should be returned to...
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.
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.
He was told two years and seven days later that he was now a ROPA captain; however, he was still on active duty as a captain and had to first be promoted to first lieutenant and then captain. The applicant states that he did not know correction of his records was possible. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion...
The BCMR Medical Consultant is of the opinion that the applicant’s reenlistment code be changed to “3K.” A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Skills Management Branch, Directorate, Personnel Program Management, HQ AFPC/DPPAE, also reviewed the application and states that since the type of separation received drives RE codes, applicant’s code is correct as reflected. Therefore, we agree with the recommendation of the Medical Consultant to change the...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-01296 INDEX CODE: 110.00 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx COUNSEL: NONE xxxxxxxxxxx HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge. STATEMENT OF FACTS: Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Washington, D.C., provided an investigative report which is attached at Exhibit C. The relevant facts pertaining...
AFBCMR 99-01297 MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION BEFORE THE AFBCMR SUBJECT: SSAN: Having carefully reviewed this application, we agree with the recommendation of the Air Staff 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 for the Chief of Staff...
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: 99-01299 INDEX NUMBER: 131.01;111.01;107.00 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Overseas Duty History on his Officer Selection Brief (OSB) for the CY99A (8 Mar 99) Major Selection Board be corrected to show his service in Germany from Aug 93 through Aug 96; the duty status code effective date for his assignment as Director of Resource Management, Medical...
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions 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: 99-01304 INDEX CODE: 134.01 XXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Letter of Reprimand (LOR) received on 10 November 1997 and Unfavorable Information File (UIF) be removed from his records. The commander had inappropriate reasons for using an LOR against him, and this was an abuse of his “commander’s discretion.” An LOR does not have to...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-01307 INDEX CODE: 107.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO Applicant requests that his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) be amended to reflect award of the Air Force Achievement Medal (AFAM), Air Force Basic Military Training (BMT) Honor Graduate Ribbon, Professional Military Education (PME) Ribbon, Air Force Outstanding Unit Award with three (3) Oak...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-01312 INDEX CODE: 111.01, 131 COUNSEL: FRED L. BAUER HEARING DESIRED: Yes APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period 20 Apr 96 through 19 Apr 97 be declared void and removed from his records and his corrected record be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at...
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.
Based on the above, the Board majority believes the applicant should have been found unfit by reason of physical disability. He was not released from active duty on 15 August 1978, but was permanently retired by reason of physical disability, effective 16 August 1978. He was not released from active duty on 15 August 1978, but was permanently retired by reason of physical disability, effective 16 August 1978.
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.
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). Counsel’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.
STATEMENT OF FACTS: In May 1997, applicant, a Reservist, while serving on active duty was dismounting a pumper truck ladder. She requested to be transferred to the Retired Reserve effective 3 August 1998. After reviewing the circumstances surrounding the applicant’s accident in May 1997, we are not persuaded that her medical condition of depression should be “In Line of Duty.” The BCMR Medical Consultant indicates that applicant’s depressive disorder predated the onset of her back problem.
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). The facts and opinions stated in the advisory opinion appear to be based on the evidence of record and have not been rebutted by applicant.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-01344 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided an investigative report which is attached at Exhibit C. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Military Personnel Management Specialist, AFPC/DPPRS,...
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit E. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and states as a Reservist brought on active duty for special work for a special project, she should have been retained on the RASL and allowed to meet Reserve boards throughout the time that she was on EAD orders. Applicant requests that she be made eligible for promotion consideration during the three years she was on active duty and,...
As a lieutenant colonel, he was subjected to an Officer Grade Determination (OGD) because of a letter of reprimand (LOR) and an Article 15. A complete copy of the DPPRRP evaluation, with attached Report of Investigation, is at Exhibit E. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In his response to the advisory opinion, the applicant stated that he accidentally viewed some nude photographs while trying to learn how to use the Internet. The evidence of record reflects that the Air Force...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-01352 INDEX CODE: 102.08 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded 24 months constructive service credit (CSC) at the time of his commission as a Reserve officer on 14 April 1995. Based on the evidence provided, they recommend denial of applicant's request. BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The...
Applicant's submission is at Exhibit A. Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Washington, D. C., provided a copy of an investigation report, which is attached at Exhibit C. The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit D). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit E). After careful consideration of...
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Compensation & Entitlements Branch, HQ USAF/DPRCC, reviewed this application and indicated that the statute in effect at the time the applicant entered his IPCOT (Section 411b, Title 37, United States Code (USC)) (5 Dec 91), states that, members and their eligible dependents must use their IPCOT leave within one year of entering the IPCOT. They do not recommend the Board correct applicant’s record to allow reimbursement for his dependents’ travel. THOMAS S....