Therefore, we recommend that the applicant's records be corrected as indicated below. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 2 Aug 00, w/Atchs. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 18 Aug 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, within 30 days (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.
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant has prior enlisted service in the Regular Air Force (15 Nov 76-14 Sep 84); a break in service (15 Sep 84 - 10 Jan 85); and, enlisted in the Air Force Reserve on 11 Jan 85. RSOO indicated that since the applicant admitted to using cocaine and having a civil conviction for dealing in cocaine, he is permanently disqualified for enlistment in the Air Force Reserve, regardless of his reenlistment...
Applicant’s counsel stated that on a procedural basis, the advisory opinion violates Air Force Instruction 36.2603, paragraph 8.1 which states that advisory opinions will include a statement whether the requested relief can be done administratively. No such statement is included in the advisory opinion. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of...
We noted the Air Force indicated that the applicant's Officer Selection Brief (OSB) prepared for review by the CY99B Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board contained a number of errors which, in their view, were harmless administrative errors and did not merit reconsideration for promotion. Although the errors have been corrected, at the time the board met, the OSB did not reflect the correct inclusive dates for his overseas duty assignment to Thailand, nor did it reflect award of the DMSM...
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). 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 Family Advocacy record and all references to child abuse be removed from his records as well as the medical records of his wife and child. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that: a. The Letter of Reprimand dated 6 Jun 97, with the resultant Unfavorable Information File; the Field Grade Officer Performance Report, AF...
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 applicant’s counsel 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 counsel.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-01323 INDEX CODE: 100.03, 100.06 APPLICANT COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of 2C be upgraded. In support of his request applicant has provided a letter from AFPC/DPPRRB, dated 24 Mar 00, announcing the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) decision to...
His ignorance and choice of companions did not warrant a discharge for Misconduct Drug Abuse or a downgrade of an honorable discharge to a general discharge. DPPRS states the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation at the time of the applicant's discharge from active duty. DPPRS indicates that the applicant did not submit any new evidence, identify any errors in the discharge process, nor provide facts that warrant an upgrade of...
_________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by a Special Selection Board for the Calendar Year 1999B Lieutenant Colonel Board, which convened on 30 Nov 99, with inclusion of the Joint Service Commendation Medal citation. Exhibit E. Letter, applicant, dated 11 Jul 00, w/atch. VAUGHN E....
In support of his request, he provided a letter from a member of the United States Senate. At the time of his acceptance, the applicant signed an addendum to Air Force Form 1056 for scholarship cadets. ___________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that the Secretary of the Air Force determined that he not be ordered to active duty,...
Applicant submitted a written statement to the discharge authority along with two letters of support. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPAES reviewed applicant's request and states that the RE code is correct (see Exhibit C). _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant's response to the Air Force advisories states that DPPRS was incorrect in stating that...
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.
They found him unfit for the rigors of military service and recommended discharge with severance pay with a 20% compensable disability rating. A copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant and counsel on 25 August 2000, for review and response within 30 days (Exhibit E). Accordingly, we recommend that the...
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPWB, also reviewed this application and indicated that the applicant’s total promotion score for the 99E5 cycle is 275.76 and the score required for selection in his Control Air Force Specialty Code (CAFSC) was 276.70. Current Air Force promotion policy dictates that, before a decoration is credited for a specific promotion cycle, the closeout date of the decoration must be on...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-01383 INDEX CODE: 131.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Promotion Enhancement Program (PEP) promotion to senior master sergeant (SMSgt) be reinstated. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Acting Chief, Military Personnel Division,...
The applicant previously appealed the contested OPR and her CY97B (2 Jun 97) Major Board (below-the-promotion zone (BPZ)) Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports. It is further recommended that she be considered for promotion to the grade of major by Special Selection Board for the CY99A (8 March 1999) Central Major Board and any subsequent boards for which the contested report was a matter of record. It is...
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.
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 adequately rebutted by applicant.
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Deputy Chief, Professional Development Division Office of the Judge Advocate General, HQ USAF/JAX, reviewed the application and stated that the applicant is obligated by regulation to serve active duty service commitments that extended his obligation to serve until 21 November 2002. Clearly stated in the ELP agreement is the regulatory rule that the ADSC incurred for ELP would be in addition to those...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-01415 INDEX CODE: 110.00, 112.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His discharge be upgraded and the reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Medical Consultant, AFBCMR, reviewed the...
However, if the decision is to grant the specific relief sought, the OPR closing out in October 1992 should reflect “Assistant Chief, Civil Law/Military Justice;” the OPR closing out in July 1993 should reflect “Assistant Chief, Military Justice;” and the OPR closing out in July 1994 should reflect “Chief, Civil Law.” The related duty titles in the personnel database would have to be changed as well. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-01423 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His uncharacterized, entry-level separation be changed to reflect that he was honorably discharged for Convenience of the Government. The Medical Consultant further recommends that the Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed to...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-01428 INDEX CODE: 131.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be considered for promotion to the grade of Lieutenant Colonel by Special Selection Board (SSB) for the Calendar Year 1999 (CY99B) Lieutenant Colonel Board. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT...
Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice to warrant the applicant’s evaluation through the Air Force Disability Evaluation System. Furthermore, the applicant contends that since his records were incomplete at the time of the evaluation, his complete record was not reviewed. GREGORY H. PETKOFF Panel Chair AFBCMR 00-01437 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air...
In support of his appeal, the applicant provided copies of his OSB, the board discrepancy report, AFCM (2OLC) citation, orders awarding him the AFAM and AFCM (1OLC), AFCM (1OLC) certificate and citation, and electronic mail (e-mail) regarding a decoration status. Regarding the applicant’s belief that the AFAM citation should have been included in his OSR in time for the board, DPPPA indicated that the decoration closeout date was 10 Jun 99, and the special order was published on 19 Mar 00. ...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-01450 INDEX NUMBER: 100.03; 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The narrative reason for his separation, and his reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 2C be changed to allow him to enlist in the Air National Guard (ANG) or Air Force Reserve. Their evaluation is at Exhibit E. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: Copies of the Air Force evaluations...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-01481 INDEX CODE: 126.00 APPLICANT COUNSEL: NONE SSB HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Article 15 he received be removed from his records and all punishment that was imposed due to the Article 15 be set aside to include a referral Enlisted Performance Report (EPR). ...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-01488 INDEX NUMBER: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO Applicant requests correction to his DD Form 214 to reflect award of Good Conduct Medals and a favorable Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) Code. 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...
___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Several errors occurred in his training and elimination from the Joint Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training (JSUPT), T-44 program, with the Navy, which resulted in unfair treatment. Unlike the Air Force flying training elimination processes, the Navy’s elimination process considers a student’s performance from previous phases of training. Therefore, the applicant’s T-37 training records were...
The 1 May 00 second opinion from the psychologist was noted; however, a majority of the Board further concludes that the narrative reason for discharge is appropriate. _________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD: A majority of the panel finds insufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommends the application be denied. BENEDICT A. KAUSAL IV Chair AFBCMR 00-01513 MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-01524 INDEX NUMBER: 107.00; 131.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Aerial Achievement Medals (AAMs), 4th and 5th Oak Leaf Clusters (OLCs), be included in his Officer Selection Record (OSR); the Citation for Award of the AAM (Basic) be included in his OSR; and that his record be...
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 that his general discharge be upgraded to honorable and the available evidence of record, we find insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant corrective action.
(See Attachment 3 to Exhibit A). On the same date another major at AFPC advised the applicant that he did not have the authority to change ADSCs; and that he briefed all members prior to signing up that the EAD program is two years unless an officer incurs an additional commitment due to training. On 17 December 1996, AFPC advised the applicant (while assigned to Korea) that his follow-on F-16 assignment’s IQT would be 60 months.
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The AFBCMR Medical Consultant, reviewed the application and recommended denial. Applicant has provided no persuasive evidence that her preexisting medical condition was improperly rated and processed at the time of her discharge or that the Air Force should compensate her for an MRI. Exhibit B.
Following a break in service, he enlisted in the Air Force Reserve in the grade of staff sergeant on 11 January 1973 for a period of three (3) years under the Air Reserve Technician (ART) Program. In a message dated 16 January 1981, personnel at the applicant’s unit indicated that his transfer to the Retired Reserve had been delayed to allow the applicant to accrue sufficient points to be credited with his 20th good year. In view of the foregoing, and because we are convinced by the...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-01552 INDEX NUMBER: 121.00, 128.14 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Oversea Tour Extension Incentive be changed from the 30-day non- chargeable leave to the $2,000 lump sum bonus. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She states that she had planned to take leave during her entitlement period; however, due to unforeseen military changes in the mission, she was unable...
His case went to the Secretary of the Air Force where he was deemed unfit to serve as an enlisted member of the Air Force even though he received an honorable discharge from the Air Force. On 13 Feb 96, the Secretary of the Air Force approved the recommendation of the Superintendent, USAFA, to disenroll the applicant and directed that he be honorably discharged from the Air Force. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Staff Judge...
Records indicate that consideration was given to initiating medical board action for the dysthymia, but no record of a board is found in her service medical records. A copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 8 September 2000, for review and response within 30 days (Exhibit E). While we share the BCMR...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-01581 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His discharge and Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be upgraded to allow his entry in the U.S. Army. However, as of this date, no response has been received by this office. In view of this, and in order to provide the applicant the opportunity to apply for entry in the Army, we believe his discharge should be upgraded...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-01582 INDEX CODE: 103.00 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No Applicant requests a Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) for five years and nine months as stated on his enlistment contract. 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...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-01587 INDEX CODE: 113.04 APPLICANT COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His current Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) be corrected to reflect 19 Dec 00 to coincide with the three-year ADSC he incurred upon completion of his graduate level Air Force sponsored Master's degree. His corrected AFIT...
_________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that provided he reimburses the United States Air Force for his Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps (AFROTC) Spring 2000 Semester college tuition, he declined his AFROTC Scholarship for the Spring 2000 semester at the University of Iowa. Exhibit E. Applicant's response, dated 18 Sep 00....
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Director of Personnel Program Management, ARPC/DPP, reviewed this application and indicated that according to Title 10, USC, Section 12731a, a member who completes at least 15 years of satisfactory service and no longer meets the qualifications for membership in the Selected Reserve solely because the member is unfit because of physical disability is eligible for retirement. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF...
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.
Therefore, he requests that the three years spent in a non-flying assignment be considered as part of his current ADSC as it is for all those who were “banked.” If his ADSC is amended to March 2003, he will have served 11 years in the Air Force, which he feels is commensurate with the training he has received and is a longer TAFMSD than many of the “banked” pilots he graduated with. Applicant’s request is at Exhibit A. They are of the opinion that the time that matters is that time served...
The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force. In view of the time and monies the Air Force has invested in the applicant' training, the current shortage of pilots within the Air Force, and the willingness of AETC/SGPS from a medical standpoint to support a waiver request for the applicant to reenter JSUPT in a low-G aircraft training, we believe the best...
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 or counsel.
On 14 February 1997, the commander, AFIA/CC, notified him that he was initiating an OGD because he received punishment under Article 15, within two years of retirement. On 28 February 1997, the Major Command Judge Advocate, AFIA/JA, found the OGD package legally sufficient to support a recommendation that the applicant be retired in the grade of lieutenant colonel. On 28 April 1997, the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council determined that the applicant did not serve satisfactorily...