At the time of the applicant’s discharge, RE code 1C did not exist. Furthermore, even if the Board was inclined to upgrade her RE code, the RE code of 1C that the applicant requested did not exist at the time of her discharge. BARBARA A. WESTGATE Chair AFBCMR 00-01647 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...
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Director of Personnel Program Management, HQ ARPC/DPP, reviewed this application and stated the record showed that the applicant completed two annual tours of active duty from 17 – 27 September 1992 and 16 – 27 August 1993. They indicated the record also showed for RYE 15 September 1992, the applicant did not complete an annual tour. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and...
Additionally, the applicant provided no facts warranting a change in his narrative reason for separation. RICHARD A. PETERSON Panel Chair AFBCMR 00-01653 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, be corrected...
INDEX CODE 128.14 AFBCMR 00-01660 MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION BEFORE THE AFBCMR SUBJECT: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 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...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-01666 INDEX CODE: 111.01, 126.03, 131.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Any mention of a Letter of Admonishment (LOA) for an alleged unprofessional relationship be removed from her records, including her officer performance report (OPR) closing 5 May 99. In JA’s view, relief should be...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-01674 INDEX NUMBER: 128.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be reimbursed in the amount of $525 for the cost of an airline ticket he purchased over the Internet from a travel agency, which was not under contract to the Federal Government. He was informed that he could either...
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and stated that not all Chinese were friendly during that time. 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...
With respect to the RE code of 2B that he received, we note that the Secretary of the Air Force has statutory authority to promulgate rules and regulations governing the administration of the Air Force. We conclude, therefore, that the discharge proceedings were proper and characterization of the discharge was appropriate to the existing circumstances. While it appears that he has made a good start toward becoming a productive member of society, we also find insufficient evidence...
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.
He has a large family and would like to be treated like any other Air Force member who ships their vehicle overseas. The applicant shipped his POV from England to the United States. ___________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that competent authority approved his request submitted under the provisions of Paragraph U5415-C of the...
This rule basically states that he didn’t come back on active duty as an officer until he began traveling to his next duty assignment. He didn’t travel until 5 June 1998, and they set his commissioning DOR between the date he separated from enlisted status and the date he began traveling as an officer. After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record, the majority of the Board is persuaded that the applicant’s commission date of rank should be changed.
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). 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. Accordingly, applicant's request is denied.
They further state that the completed agreement clearly states “ADSC under this agreement will be the day following completion of existing ADSC for any medical education and training.” They noted that applicant properly executed the agreement which stated the provisions of the associated active duty obligation and projected staffing in the applicant’s specialty are based on his retainability to 16 May 2003. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-01720 INDEX CODE: 100.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT) Active Duty Service Commitment be reduced from 6 July 2003 (four years) to 19 March 2001 (three years from the date of his graduation). As noted by the Air Force, although the statement...
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.
On 10 Aug 53, he was reduced to the grade of Airman 3rd Class under the provisions of Article 15, UCMJ, for failure to report at appointed time to his place of duty and making a false statement. On 25 Oct 54, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (DRB) examined and reviewed the applicant’s request for discharge upgrade and concluded that the evidence submitted was insufficient to warrant a change in the type or nature of his discharge, and accordingly denied his request (see Exhibit C). ...
: 00-01751 INDEX CODE: 110.03 COUNSEL: DAV HEARING DESIRED: YES The applicant requests the narrative reason for separation on his DD Form 214 be changed and a new DD Form 256 be issued. The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). Applicant's response to the advisory opinions are at Exhibit E. After careful consideration of applicant's request and the available evidence of...
The relevant facts, extracted from the available record, are contained in the letter prepared by the apapropriate office of the Air Force. Should a check of the Federal Bureau of Investigation files prove negative, DPPRS recommends his discharge be upgraded to under honorable conditions (general). Having found no error or injustice with regard to the actions that occurred while the applicant was a military member, we conclude that no basis exists to grant favorable action on his request.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-01767 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The narrative reason for his discharge from the Air Force, Personality Disorder, be removed from his DD Form 214. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-01771 INDEX CODE: 111.01 APPLICANT COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Professional Military Education (PME) recommendations be added to his 20 Feb 94 and 20 Feb 95 Officer Performance Reports (OPRs), and he be considered for promotion to major by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for the CY98B...
Had the applicant been told prior to signing his AFHPSP contract, that he would still have to serve an additional four years for his AFROTC scholarship, he would not have accepted the AFHPSP contract. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that his four-year Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC), incurred as a result of his Air...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-01796 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed from a 2B to a code that would allow him to enlist into the Army Reserves as a Military Chaplain. While the RE code assigned to the applicant, at the time, was technically correct and in accordance...
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, 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.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-01798 INDEX CODE: 107.00, 131.00 COUNSEL: NONE APPLICANT HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM), (2OLC), be considered in the promotion process for cycle 99E6 to technical sergeant. It is further recommended that he be provided supplemental consideration for promotion 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 adequately rebutted by applicant.
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). 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 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). Accordingly, applicant's request is denied.
On 7 July 1961, the discharge authority approved the recommendation of the discharge board and directed the applicant’s discharge. At the time of the discharge board, the only evidence considered was his personal statement. We also find insufficient evidence to warrant a recommendation that the discharge be upgraded on the basis of clemency.
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: The Chief, Military Justice Division, AFLSA/JAJM, reviewed the application and states that the applicant maintains that he did not knowingly file a false claim, but was misled by investigators and the legal office personnel. However, should the Board void the Article 15, it could reinstate his promotion to technical sergeant with an effective date and date of rank of 1 July 2000. In the applicant’s...
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). 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: 00-01830 INDEX CODE: 100.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His grade be changed from Flight Officer to Second Lieutenant. He stated that he never did apply nor did he ever get the chance to fly overseas and fight for his country. He also states that there is no error or injustice in his case.
AFBCMR 00-01833 INDEX NUMBER: 131.00 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. Members of the Board, Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr., Mr. E. David Hoard, considered this application on...
He still maintains that his senior rater did not give him a strong enough push for a DP at the MLR and that the OPR closing out 17 Jun 97 (originally 5 Aug 97) generated by a Change of Reporting Official was delayed due to rating chain mismanagement and inattentiveness. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. The Appeals and SSB Branch, AFPC/DPPPA, evaluated this application and recommends denial of the applicant’s request for a direct promotion. While we understand that the...
The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied applicant's 27 Mar 95 request for an honorable discharge on 5 Nov 96. 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).
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-01844 INDEX CODE: 100.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO Applicant requests that his records be corrected to reflect a complete record of his duty assignments and military training. Applicant's submission is at Exhibit A. Applicant’s military personnel records were lost or destroyed by fire. Members of the Board Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr., and Mr. E. David...
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.
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states that he is very disappointed in the way AFPC analyzed and commented on the facts. Applicant's complete response is attached at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. The Air Force...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-01861 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Applicant is the widow of a former service member who requests posthumous promotion of her late husband to the grade of major. The applicant, the widow of a former service member, is requesting that her husband’s records be corrected to reflect that he...
However, an error is noted in his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge From Active Duty), Item 28, which states the narrative reason for separation as being “Personality Disorder.” The BCMR Medical Consultant states that the current Air Force Instruction (AFI) regulating separations for mental health problems does not allow coding for other than “Personality Disorder,” an entirely different DSM-IV code sequence from that with which the applicant was diagnosed. A complete copy of...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-01867 INDEX CODE: 112.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed. THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that at the time of his discharge on 18 July 1982, he was issued a Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of “3K.” The...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant reviewed applicant's request and recommends denial. She concluded that she was in good health before receiving the fourth anthrax vaccine, after the fourth vaccine she became extremely ill, she is to this day suffering side effects from the vaccine, and there are no studies of the long-term adverse health effects. ...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief Medical Consultant, AFBCMR, reviewed this application and states that he is of the opinion that no change in the records is warranted and the application should be denied. We recognize that final disposition of a disability case is based on a “snapshot in time;” however, we believe that her cognitive disorder condition was of such a progressive nature that a true picture of her condition was...
A copy of the AFDRB Hearing Record is appended at Exhibit C. Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Clarksburg, WV, provided an investigative report which is attached at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Separations Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, stated that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation at the time of his discharge from...
AFBCMR 00-01887 INDEX CODE: 111.01 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...
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states that it is not true that his depression predated his Accession Physical exam on 12 December 1991. He states, at no time prior to this date had he been diagnosed with depression. He further states that if the decision is that the funds expended for his education are to...
After careful consideration of applicant’s request, we note that there are no records available for review and applicant has not provided documentation revealing the circumstances of his discharge. The Board staff is directed to inform applicant of this decision. VAUGHN E. SCHLUNZ Panel Chair Exhibits: A.
___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Awards and Decorations Section, AFPC/DPPPR, states that the wing commander’s note that he did not want to affect anyone’s promotion has been lost and, in fact, did affect the applicant’s promotion by changing the closeout date. The documentation included in the applicant’s case file reflects the closeout date of his decoration was 1 Oct 98 and the Promotion Eligibility Cutoff Date (PECD) for 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). 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.
Members of the Board, Mr. Patrick R. Wheeler. Mr. E. David Hoard and Ms. Patricia D. Vestal considered this application on 21 November 2000. AFBCMR 00-01923 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 Military Records is announced, and it is directed that: The pertinent...