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.
AFBCMR 00-01929 INDEX NUMBER: 110.00 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...
DPPPWB assumes that his eligibility for promotion was reviewed during the 11 months preceding his separation, especially since he was awarded the Silver Star for his actions during the period Mar 44 to Sep 44. Since, at this late date, there is no way to know when the applicant would have met the established eligibility criteria for promotion, we believe that the applicant will be afforded proper and fitting relief by correcting his records to show he was promoted to the grade of technical...
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. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Mr. Roscoe Hinton Jr., and Mr. E. David Hoard considered this application on 1 November 2000. THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ Panel Chair Attachment: Ltr, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dtd 12 Sep 00, with attachment AFBCMR 00-01952 INDEX CODE: 124.04 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...
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: 00-01970 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His dishonorable discharge be upgraded. 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 other than going AWOL, he has a clean service record. Considered alone, we conclude...
___________________________________________________________________ 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 B). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit C). Applicant's response to the advisory opinion is at 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.
Based upon an Aircrew Evaluation Board recommendation or an aircrew member's voluntary disqualification, any flying unit commander may disqualify any non-rated aircrew from aviation service. Additionally, the commander may recommend permanent disqualification and withdrawal of an aviation badge through command channels to the Major Command (MAJCOM). A complete copy of the advisory is at Exhibit C. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-01988 (Case 4) INDEX CODE: 136.01, 131.00, COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His retirement grade of major be changed to lieutenant colonel and his retirement date of 1 Jul 95 be changed to 1 Jul 00, with recomputation of his 1405 service date to reflect he retired from active duty with 22 years...
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). The facts and opinions stated in the advisory opinion appear to be based on the evidence of record and have not been rebutted by applicant.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-02000 INDEX CODE: 107.00, 111.05 APPLICANT COUNSEL: Mr. Robert E. Bergman HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be retroactively promoted to the grade of lieutenant colonel effective the first date eligible with his year group; his Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period 18 May 93 through 17...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-02003 INDEX CODE: 131.05 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to reflect that he was promoted to the grade of chief master sergeant (CMSgt) during the 98E9 cycle. It was further explained that this supplemental promotion process allows those individuals who had errors in...
The applicant filed a similar appeal under AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, which the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) denied. Without clear-cut explanation or evidence, we do not believe the contested report is not accurate as written, and do not support his request to correct EPR. A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...
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's response to the advisory opinions is at Exhibit E. After careful consideration of applicant's request and the available evidence of record, we find insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant corrective action.
He should have been retired as an LTC under the provisions of the Defense Officer Personnel Management Act (DOPMA). Complete copies of his three DD Form 149s are at Exhibit A. A copy of DPPPRA’s letter is at Exhibit D. In his third application (Exhibit A), dated 28 Aug 00, the applicant again asks that his DD Form 214 reflect “Radiation Veteran/Survivor” and that he be promoted to the grade of LTC under the provisions of DOPMA.
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.
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.
On 31 Jul 81, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-10 (Failed to Meet Physical Standards for Enlistment) with an honorable characterization of service in the grade of airman basic with an RE code of 2P (Separated under AFR 39-10 as marginal performer or to preserve good order and discipline, Basic Military Trainee (BMT) eliminees discharged due to erroneous enlistment, concealment of civilian convictions, and so forth) and a separation code of JFU (Failed to Meet...
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.
If the applicant is desirous of seeking a waiver for this condition, then he must provide thorough evidence of complete lack of such residual effects, in keeping with these medical standards for enlistment, something he has not provided with the current application. A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Military Personnel Management Specialist, AFPC/DPPRS, reviewed the application and states that they concur with the AFBCMR Medical Consultant’s recommendation that...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Military Personnel Management Specialist, HQ AFPC/DPPRS reviewed this application and recommended denial. _________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD: A majority of the Board finds insufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommend the application be denied. A majority found that applicant had not provided substantial evidence of error...
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 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. HENRY ROMO JR. Panel Chair Exhibits: A.
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 remaining 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. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Directorate of Personnel Program Management, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). Sufficient relevant...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 0002067 INDEX CODE: 131.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He receive supplemental promotion consideration to master sergeant for cycle 95E7, using the test scores from cycle 97E7 vice 96E7. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-02083 INDEX NUMBER: 131.00; 111.05 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Officer Performance Reports (OPRs), rendered for the periods 17 May 1994 through 16 May 1995 and 17 May 1995 through 14 December 1995, be removed from his records and that he be given a direct promotion to the grade of...
The applicant’s records under this selection process must be better than all the records below the board score required for selection and equal to or better than at least one of the records that had the board score needed for promotion. If the applicant had been considered by the initial 00E8 Evaluation Board he would have needed a board score of 352.50 to have been selected. During the supplemental process, his records were benchmarked with three records that a received a 352.50 board...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-02097 INDEX NUMBER: 111.05 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His AF Form 475, Education/Training Report (TR), dated 24 Nov 97 be removed from his permanent file and replaced with the corrected AF Form 475 dated 17 May 00. As such, they do not support substituting the reaccomplished...
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 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.
In this respect, we note that the applicant was supplementally considered, and selected for promotion to the grade of technical sergeant during cycle 95E6. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that he be provided supplemental consideration for promotion to the grade of master sergeant for all appropriate cycles beginning with...
In support of her appeal, the applicant provided the contested EPR, statements by the rater (dated 8 February 2000 & 27 July 2000), the indorser (dated 21 December 1999), and the commander (dated 15 December 1999 & 7 April 2000) of the contested report, the reaccomplished report, and a letter from the Superintendent, 436th Aerospace Medicine Squadron, dated 12 July 2000. MEMORANDUM FOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR) FROM: SAF/MIB SUBJECT:...
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 not available...
This regulation prevents him from receiving the same entitlements that every other military member has that is serving on an accompanied tour and has their spouse “command sponsored.” There is no difference from him and a military member who receives these entitlements other than the fact that his marriage date is after the date that his tour started. Had the applicant been married prior to entering his second tour of duty the Air Force would have been able to reimburse him for his wife’s...
In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a copy of the board discrepancy report, dated 17 Nov 99 (Exhibit A). Even though the citations were not on file for the board, they were in evidence before the board in that they were reflected on the OSB. Since the board members were aware of the decorations, they were factored into the promotion evaluation.
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.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-02173 INDEX CODE: 111.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 30 Aug 98 through 29 Aug 99 be declared void and removed from his records. Based on the reason(s) for the referral EPR, the applicant’s commander could very well have...
JOHN J. D’ORAZIO Chief Examiner Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS CASE TRANSMITTAL / COORDINATION RECORD IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO: 00-02185 ROUTE IN TURN INITIALS DATE 1. MS. DIANA ARNOLD _____6 Dec 2000____________ (MEMBER) 3. AFBCMR (Processing) EXAMINER AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
Current Air Force promotion policy (AFI 36-2502, Airman Promotion Program, Table 2.2, rule 5 Note 2) dictates that before a decoration is credited for a specific promotion cycle, the closeout date of the decoration must be on or before the promotion eligibility cutoff date (PECD), and the date of the DÉCOR-6, Recommendation for Decoration Printout (RDP), must be before the date of selections for the cycle in question. The Office of Primary Responsibility (OPR) for Air Force...
The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPPAB evaluated this application and recommends denial of the applicant’s request. There is no evidence provided that he has requested an investigation. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant responded to the Air Force evaluations and stated that both evaluations contained several errors and important items not...
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.
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: During the time period in question the applicant, a Reservist, served on active duty from 25 Jan 91-21 May 91. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Awards and Decorations Section, HQ AFPC/DPPPR, reviewed this application and states the applicant has not provided any documentation showing a written recommendation was submitted into official...
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). 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 offices evaluated applicant's requests and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The applicant’s response to the advisory opinions is at Exhibit E. After careful consideration of applicant's request and the available evidence of record, we find insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant corrective action. PATRICK R. WHEELER Panel Chair Exhibits: A.
This date is within the cutoff requirement for the 98E6 promotion cycle and should be considered during the promotion process. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Enlisted Promotion & Military Testing Branch, AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed the application and states that current Air Force promotion policy (AFI 36-2502) dictates that before a decoration is credited for a specific promotion cycle, the close out date of the DECOR 6,...
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.
INDEX CODE: 121.00, 121.03 AFBCMR 00-02276 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...