RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-00698 INDEX CODE: 110.00 APPLICANT (Deceased) COUNSEL: None SSN HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His late father’s under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to honorable. Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Washington, D.C., provided an investigative...
The applicant was considered and selected for promotion to the grade of TSgt by the 00E6 promotion cycle. After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record, we are not persuaded that the applicant should be promoted to the grade of technical sergeant by the 98E6 promotion cycle. Applicant’s disappointment is understandable but he has not presented sufficient persuasive evidence that he should be promoted to the grade of technical sergeant by the 98E6 cycle.
On 19 September 1955, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied applicant’s request for an upgrade of his BCD to under honorable conditions (general) (Exhibit C). Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided an investigative report which is attached at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Military Personnel Management Specialist, HQ...
He received one performance report with an overall promotion recommendation of 9. The discharge authority approved a general discharge, without probation and rehabilitation. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 28 June 2000, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied applicant’s request for an upgrade of his general discharge to honorable.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-00734 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to show that he received a degree from the Community College of the Air Force (CCAF). APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: As a result of miscounseling he received regarding the completion requirements for his CCAF degree, he was less than one credit short of obtaining his CCAF degree at the time of his...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-00777 INDEX CODE: 113.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The 78 days of Active Duty Training (ADT) he spent as a legal intern on an educational delay be credited towards his total active federal military service date (TAFMSD) and his 10 U.S.C. Therefore, in light of the date on applicant's...
INDEX CODE: 135.01, 113.04 AFBCMR 00-00783 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 corrected as set...
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided an 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 office 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.
In support of his request the applicant has submitted a personal statement, several memorandums from his counsel in support of his efforts to appeal and set aside the Article 15 action, an excerpt from the Manual for Courts- Martial (MCM), his Article 15 written presentation, eyewitness statements, and an AF Form 3070, Record of Nonjudicial Punishment Proceedings. As of this date, this office has received no response. The applicant has not provided any evidence showing that the imposing...
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.
The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied the applicant’s request for upgrade of her discharge and change in her reentry code. The AFDRB Brief and AFPC/DPPAE letter were 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 the applicant.
His reenlistment eligibility was “ineligible.” On 1 March 1990, the applicant was honorably discharged from the Air National Guard and the Air Force Reserve by reason of Expiration of Term of Service. The applicant was further advised that because the characterization of his service was honorable and his separation was mandated by Federal regulation, there was no provision for an administrative hearing. We agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air National Guard office 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 and counsel 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 NO: 00-00881 INDEX CODE: 128.05 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Separation Program Designator (SPD) code of JKM be changed to a code that would not require the recoupment of her Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB). _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-00897 INDEX CODE: 131.01 APPLICANT COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be retroactively promoted to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the CY98B Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...
Using the cube rule, ECAF increased the weight for professional books, papers, and equipment (PBP&G), from 50 pounds to 960 pounds for the unaccompanied baggage (UB) shipment and credited 457 pounds for missing and irreparably damaged items for the household goods (HHG) shipment that moved from Germany to England. JPPSO/CC indicates the applicant submitted an amendment to his original application in which he states he made another PCS move from England back to Germany and he was not...
AF Form 1441 (Extension or Cancellation of Extensions of Enlistment in the Regular Air Force/Air Force Reserve) has an additional extension counseling section which includes two statements which were not initialed by him indicating that he was not briefed this information. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that the extension...
The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant's military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force. Through no fault of the applicant, his record was incomplete at the time he was considered for promotion in the 98E6 cycle in that the AFCM in question was not in his records. THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:
He requested written notification of the activation and issuance of orders for the period of the PSRC starting in Mar 98 before the signing of the Fiscal Year 1998 (FY98) National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which terminated the RRMIIP, and therefore qualifies for payment of benefits. Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that he should be given the requested relief.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-00936 INDEX NUMBER:106.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. Other facts surrounding his discharge from the Air Force are unknown inasmuch as the complete discharge correspondence is not available. Applicant submitted a brief summary of 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). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). Members of the Board, Mr. Terry A. Yonkers, Ms. Marcia J. Bachman, and Ms. Margaret A. Zook, considered this application on 22 Nov 00, in accordance with the provisions of Air Force Instruction 36-2603 and the governing statute, 10 U.S.C.
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinions were forwarded to the applicant for review and response, within 30 days (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.
AFBCMR 00-00964 INDEX NUMBER: 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 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.
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The reasons the applicant believes the records to be in error or unjust and the evidence submitted in support of the appeal are at Exhibit A. THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that his Military Occupational Specialty was Aerial Gunner. RICHARD A. PETERSON Panel Chair AFBCMR 00-00989 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-01006 INDEX NUMBER:112.05; 135.02 XXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: None XXX-XX-XXXX HEARING DESIRED: No ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The statement of service in block 24 of his DD Form 214 effective 5 Aug 66 be changed to 4 years, 0 months, 0 days instead of 3 years, 11 months, 29 days to give him enough service in the Reserves...
STATEMENT OF FACTS: The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant's military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force. In view of this, and in the absence of evidence showing that the applicant did in fact receive the notification of his eligibility to enroll during the open enrollment period, we believe the interest of justice can best be served by ruling in the applicant’s behalf. Therefore, we recommend...
He had less than two years eligibility to complete ACSC prior to consideration for LTC IPZ in Apr 99, whereas his peers had at least four and one-half years. He did complete ACSC in Nov 99 in time for the CY99B board’s consideration. Although the applicant did not raise this issue, we believe his not having sufficient time to build a performance record as a major before being considered IPZ for LTC may have contributed to his nonselection.
A discrepancy letter filed in the OSR indicated to the promotion board there was a missing citation, and the level of the medal. Without a definitely promote (DP), the opportunity for promotion while serving in a joint billet appears to be limited. With respect to the applicant’s allegation of not receiving proper representation at the Management Level Review (MLR), the Board majority noted that, according to the governing Air Force instruction, proper procedures were followed in the...
On 29 April 1998, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) upgraded the applicant’s discharge to honorable, changed the reason for his discharge to Secretarial Authority, and changed his Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code to “2C.” On 25 February 1999, the AFBCMR denied the applicant’s request that his involuntary discharge be declared void; he be given all back pay for fulfillment of his contract; his former grade of staff sergeant (E-5) be reinstated; his RE code be upgraded to 1J;” 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’s 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.
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His Total Federal Commissioned Service Date (TFCSD), Total Years Service Date (TYSD), Pay Date, and Mandatory Separation Date (MSD) are in error. With his five years in the active Air Force, he had almost eighteen years of military service when he was informed in Jan 00, that he would be discharged immediately. There was no evidence that the applicant was informed by ARPC of the implications of his...
The fact that he was diagnosed by the DVA for Lyme disease in 1996 (some 40-plus years following his discharge) is irrelevant because his records show he was fit to perform his military duties right up until the time of his involuntary discharge. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant contends his disease has been continuously active since contraction in...
She has not provided any documentation showing that a recommendation was submitted into official channels within two years of her meritorious service for that period. They state the RDP was not requested until 18 years after the closeout date of the decoration period, and was signed by retired personnel in her then chain of command. A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...
___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Operational Training Division, USAF/XOOT, reviewed the application and states that although it is possible that the applicant flew five additional combat missions and destroyed an additional enemy aircraft, they can make no concrete determination based on the records provided by the National Personnel Records Center (Exhibit C). ...
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Available documentation indicates that the applicant enlisted in the Air Force Reserve on 30 Jun 99 in the grade of E-1 for a period of six years. Accordingly, we recommend that the applicant’s records be corrected as indicated below. CHARLENE M. BRADLEY Panel Chair AFBCMR 00-01075 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of...
AFBCMR 00-01089 INDEX NUMBER: 128.00 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 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.
AFBCMR 00-01165 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 XX, be corrected to show that he was awarded the Bronze Star Medal, rather than the Air Force Commendation Medal, for meritorious service while assigned...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-01169 INDEX NUMBER:131.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: It appears the applicant is requesting that the command level for his current duty assignment on his officer selection brief (OSB) be corrected from W/B (wing/base) to CMHQ (major command headquarters) and that he be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by Special Selection...
Changing the commission date will allow him to retire earlier so she can have the surgery and he can care for her. However, a member needs 10 years on active duty as an officer in order to retire for LOS in an officer grade, or in this case after Jul 03. However, if he wishes LOS retirement in an officer grade, he needs 10 years as an officer based on his total active federal commissioned date(2 Jul 93).
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Officer Separations, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, stated that in accordance with Air Force Instruction 36-2107, the applicant incurred an ADSC of 2 years from his Date Arrived on Station (DAS) of 2 Jul 99. DPPRS indicated that after over 20 years of active duty service and several PCS moves, it is highly unlikely the applicant honestly believed his PCS from WPAFB to Athens, OH, would incur no PCS...
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.
Members of the Board, Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr., and Mr. E. David Hoard, considered this application on 1 November 2000. Panel Chair Attachments: 1. Memorandum, AFPC/DPPAES, dtd 3 Sep 00 AFBCMR 00-01199 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...
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The 16th Operations Support Squadron (OSS) completed a 161-day OPR reflecting his current duty, Operations Officer, early in order to be signed and faxed to the promotion board in time for inclusion in his records. The Editor also states that the rater did have full intent for the contested report to meet the board. HENRY ROMO, JR. Panel Chair AFBCMR 00-01203 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having...
_________________________________________________________________ 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 will only be reconsidered upon the submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with this application. ...
JAJM states the applicant conceded he did not attend the mandatory alcohol program aftercare meetings that were the subject of his second Article 15 action. The requested relief should be denied {Exhibit C). With respect to removal of the Article 15's for violation of Article 134 of the UCMJ, "Failure to pay American Express indebtedness" and Article 86 of the UCMJ, "Failure to Go", we are not persuaded by the evidence presented that relief is warranted and adopt the opinion of JAJM as our...
A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Acting Chief, Appeals and SSB Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPA, states that the applicant contends the officer selection brief reviewed by the board did not reflect the correct command level code. Applicant’s Officer Selection Brief (OSB) did not reflect the correct command level for the 1 January 1999 entry on the applicant’s duty history at the time he was considered by the CY99B selection board. VAUGHN E. SCHLUNZ Panel Chair AFBCMR...
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Assignment Procedures Section, AFPC/DPAPP1, reviewed the application and states that applicant’s request to have the command level block updated to reflect “CMHQ,” versus “NAF,” was approved and updated by the Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC) through an In-System Request (ISR) on 25 April 2000. There is no record provided to indicate that the request was approved in time to change the applicant’s record prior to the date the CY99B board convened. In fact,...