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 office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (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. Applicant should also be informed that this decision is final and will only be reconsidered upon the presentation of new relevant evidence which was...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-01365 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: RONALD SMALL HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded and he be allowed to retire in the grade of master sergeant. A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit...
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.
AFBCMR 99-01372 MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION BEFORE THE AFBCMR SUBJECT: 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 for the Chief of Staff signed by...
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). The Board staff is directed to inform applicant of this decision.
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.
Therefore, while the applicant’s daughter has recanted her story, we find no such documentation from this other victim. Further, we also find insufficient evidence to warrant a recommendation that the discharge be upgraded on the basis of clemency. Exhibit H. Counsel's response, dated 27 Oct 99, w/atchs.
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 his counsel 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 or his counsel.
AFBCMR 99-01385 INDEX NUMBER: 128.04 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 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). 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). 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: 99-01399 INDEX CODE: 111.01 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: Yes APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Letter of Evaluation (LOE), dated 3 Feb 96, become a permanent addendum to his Officer Performance Report (OPR) for the period ending 30 Nov 96; his Officer Selection Brief (OSB), dated 19 May 98, be corrected to reflect his Date of Separation as Indefinite and any reference to a retirement date...
AFBCMR 99-01533 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 STANLEY M. HASSLER, 404-74-8107, be corrected to show that: a. He was not discharged from the Air Force Reserve on 9 March 1991, but, was transferred...
The commander advised the applicant if his recommendation for discharge was approved, he would be ineligible for reenlistment in the Air Force. On 15 March 1999, the Air Force Discharge Review Board upgraded applicant’s characterization of discharge to Honorable and changed the reason for discharge to Secretarial Authority. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Military Personnel Management Specialist, AFPC/DPPRS, reviewed...
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation, with attachment, is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPWB, also reviewed this application and indicated that the last promotion cycle the applicant was eligible for consideration to the grade of technical sergeant prior to his retirement date was 93A6 with promotions effective 1 Aug 92 – 1 Jul 93. Current Air Force promotion policy (AFI 36-2502, Table 2.2, Rule 5, Note 2), the directive in effect at the time,...
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. The BCMR Medical Consultant reviewed this application and indicated that the applicant’s conviction by general court-martial in Dec 95 resulted in the order for his BCD which came after he completed a 15- month period of confinement. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit F. The Special Programs & BCMR Manager, AFPC/DPPAES, also reviewed this application and indicated that a review of...
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that on 16 Dec 66, he was discharged with service characterized as general (under honorable conditions). Exhibit C. FBI Report, dated 16 Dec 99. THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ Panel Chair AFBCMR 99-01778 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under...
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed the application and states that they defer to the recommendation of AFLSA/JAJM concerning removal of the Article 15 and AFPC/DPPPAB concerning removal of the APR. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. The Chief, BCMR Appeals and SSB Section, AFPC/DPPPAB, reviewed the application and states that applicant requests the contested APR...
Furthermore, the Air Force indicates that AFI 36-2107, Table 28, Rule 36, does not apply because the fellowship training was non- Graduate Medical Education (GME) related; however, the DPMAE Educational PCS Request reflects, “Active Duty GME to GME.” In view of this, and based on the statement from the individual that miscounseled the applicant, a majority of the Board believes the interest of equity and justice can best be served by correcting the applicant’s records to reflect that the...
When the Air Force came out with the Early Retirement Program, he discovered he was ineligible because of the needs of the Air Force. On 11 September 1995, the SJA recommended approval of the discharge action with an honorable discharge without P&R and that the separation authority recommend to the Secretary of the Air Force that he not receive lengthy service probation. The applicant did not meet the criteria and/or standards necessary to remain on active duty and the commander took...
On 10 Aug 99, the applicant was separated under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, by reason of “Personality Disorder,” with an uncharacterized entry level separation, with separation code JFX. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant reviewed this application and indicated that the applicant entered the Air Force on 21 Jul 99 and was separated three weeks later after being evaluated in the BAS following two ambulance...
Applicant's complete submission, which includes a notarized statement from his current spouse requesting disenrollment, is attached at Exhibit A. If the Board recommends granting the request, his record should be corrected to show he disenrolled from the SBP under the provisions of PL 105-85, effective 16 May 1999, with his wife’s concurrence. ________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session...
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided 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). Applicant's DD Form 149 B.
The DoD/IG investigation stated that from July 1996 through September 1997, the applicant was placed in a “Failure to Comply” status for failing to meet Air Force dental standards four times. The applicant’s complete response is attached at Exhibit E. ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Director, Military Justice, (AFRC/JAJ), reviewed the application and states that the LORs and demotion action complied with applicable regulations and the allegations contained therein are supported by...
The applicant was discharged as a result of the findings and recommendations of an administrative discharge board. The complete response from the applicant’s counsel is at Exhibit F. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE ADVISORY: The applicant’s counsel also responded to the additional evaluation. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 7 Jan 00.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-02651 INDEX CODE: 126.04 APPLICANT COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), initiated on 31 Mar 1999 and imposed on 6 Apr 1999, be removed from his military records. On 25 Jun 99, the commander suspended the...
On 15 Jun 98, the applicant was notified by his commander that he was suspending him from aviation service, effective 22 Dec 97. During this time period, the applicant, through no fault of his own, obviously continued to receive flight pay as he had not been suspended from aviation service. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show...
The Numbered Air Force (NAF) commander convened a FEB from 6 through 8 February 1998 for the purpose of considering the evidence concerning the applicant’s professional qualifications as a pilot and to make recommendations concerning his future performance of flying duties. ___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION The Air Force Reserve Command (AFPC) Military Personnel Division, AFRC/DPM evaluated this application. The complete evaluation is...
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.
Lastly, while the applicant contends his commander improperly considered his two prior Article 15s in determining an appropriate punishment, the commander denied this in a written statement to the applicant’s defense counsel. After noting this statement, a majority of the Board finds no reason to believe the commander improperly considered applicant’s two prior Article 15s in determining an appropriate punishment based on applicant’s unofficial use of government e-mail. THE BOARD...
Lastly, while the applicant contends his commander improperly considered his two prior Article 15s in determining an appropriate punishment, the commander denied this in a written statement to the applicant’s defense counsel. In the opinion of the majority of the Board, the applicant has not provided any evidence showing that the commander abused his discretionary authority in imposing the Article 15 punishment, that the punishment was too harsh, or that the commander considered...
INDEX CODE: 131.09, 131.04, 131.05 AFBCMR 99-02897 MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION BEFORE THE AFBCMR SUBJECT: APPLICANT Having carefully reviewed this application, we agree with the recommendation of the Special Review Board and adopt that recommendation 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...
The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied applicant's request on 20 October 1999. In accordance with policy, the application was forwarded to this Board for further consideration (Exhibit C). Counsel's responses to the AFDRB are 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: 99-02930 INDEX CODE: 111.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 1 Jun 97 through 22 Feb 98 be declared void and removed from his records; or, in the alternative, the contested report be upgraded to an overall “5” rating and all markings in...
Members of the Board Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Mr. Roscoe Hinton Jr., and Mr. E. David Hoard considered this application on 31 October 2000. THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ Panel Chair Attachments: 1. Ltr, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dtd 8 Aug 00 AFBCMR 99-02935 INDEX CODE: 110.00 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...
On 20 May 1997, the applicant received an LOR for failure to reduce body fat or weight at the rate described for satisfactory progress in accordance with AFI 40-502, the WMP. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. The Directorate of Personnel Program Management, AFPC/DPPRRP, also reviewed this application and states that the law which allows for advancement of enlisted members of the Air Force, when their active service plus service on the retired list totals...
__________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Information taken from the applicant’s master personnel file, reflects that he entered the active Air Force on 21 June 1982. On 10 January 1997, the Numbered Air Force Staff Judge Advocate found the discharge case file to be legally sufficient for discharge for misconduct. The applicant submitted an application to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) requesting that his discharge be upgraded...
On 1 March 2000, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied the applicant’s request that his discharge be upgraded to honorable and that the reason for discharge be changed. (See AFDRB Hearing Record 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 C). The advisory opinion and the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) Hearing Record were...
The evidence of record reflects that the applicant reenlisted on 1 Dec 98. At the time of his reenlistment on 18 December 1998, he was entitled to a Zone C, Multiple 1.0, Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) with obligated service through 20 January 1999. At the time of his reenlistment on 18 December 1998, he was entitled to a Zone C, Multiple 1.0, Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) with obligated service through 20 January 1999.
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant responded that he does not allege there are significant errors in his record. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that he should be promoted to LTC by the correction of records process. The applicant has not submitted persuasive evidence that he was not...
On 9 November 1999, applicant’s Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) entitlement expired when he reached 10 years of service. He has provided no evidence to substantiate error or injustice nor inconsistencies in the application of the Air Force’s early reenlistment policies. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant reviewed the evaluation 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). 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.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-03113 INDEX CODE: 110.00 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx COUNSEL: NONE xxxxxxxxxxx HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. Further we note, that the applicant has not provided anything essentially different from before. ...
A complete copy of the AFDRB Hearing Record is attached at Exhibit C. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the AFDRB Hearing Record and submitted additional documentation to further substantiate his contention that his 13 November 1991 civil court conviction had been expunged in 1997. ___________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent...
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). Accordingly, applicant's request is denied.
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) on his PRF is K12R3B and should be L12R3B. A complete copy of the DPAPS evaluation is at Exhibit C. The Evaluation Board Branch, AFPC/DPPPEB, reviewed this application and recommended denial of the applicant’s request to change the DAFSC on the PRF. No evidence has been presented which has shown to our satisfaction that the AFAM and PRF were not in his records prior to the convening of the CY97C board, his PRF was unfairly annotated, or that his...
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). 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 facts and opinions stated in the advisory opinion appear to be based on the evidence of record and...