On 8 Oct 96, the Board recommended that the applicant’s records be corrected to show that he was tendered and accepted an appointment as a second lieutenant, Officers’ Reserve Corps, Army of the United States (Air Corps), which was approved by the Director, Air Force Review Boards Agency on 19 Feb 97 (Exhibit B). On 19 Mar 98, the Board considered and denied an application pertaining to the applicant, in which he requested that his records be corrected to reflect that he retired from the...
ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 97-02572 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES RESUME OF CASE: On 12 February 1998, the Board considered applicant’s requests that his nonselections for promotion to the grade of major beginning with the Calendar Year 1993 (CY93) Central Major Board be declared void and his records be corrected to reflect selection for promotion to the grade of major by the CY93 board and...
On or about 22 Nov 85, he failed to progress satisfactorily in the Air Force WMP by gaining 10 pounds instead of losing the 5 pounds required. On 30 Jan 89, the commander, Air Refueling Wing, , received the proposed demotion case against the applicant and agreed with the applicant’s commander that demotion action was appropriate, effective 30 Jan 89. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant reviewed this application...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 97-02613 INDEX CODE: A02.33 COUNSEL: VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general discharge from the Air Force Reserve be upgraded to honorable. He now requests that his record be corrected and he receive the honorable discharge he deserves. Accordingly, the Board majority recommends...
Information provided by AFPC/DPPPWB, Enlisted Promotion Branch, reflects that based on applicant’s date of rank to master sergeant of 1 August 1985, he was considered for promotion to senior master sergeant for three promotion cycles, 89S8 (promotions effective Apr 88- Mar 89), 90S8 (promotions effective Apr 89-Mar 90), and 91S8 (promotions effective Apr 90-Mar 91), prior to his retirement on 1 September 1990. ___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 97-03330 INDEX NUMBER: 137.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Applicant is the widow of the former servicemember who requests corrective action that would entitle her to a Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) annuity. The servicemember died on 5 August 1985, but the applicant did not apply for the...
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request concerning his disability retirement and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending no change in the records (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. We noted that the facts and opinions stated in the advisory...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Directorate of Personnel Program Management, ARPC/DP, reviewed this application and noted that the applicant was involuntarily reassigned to Headquarters Air Reserve Personnel Center (HQ ARPC) in May 90. A complete copy of the ARPC/DP evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In his detailed response, the...
It is his contention that by not recalculating the board score, the promotion board invalidated the AFBCMR decision to give him supplemental consideration. If, on the other hand, the board determines the change could have had significant enough impact to cause the individual’s selection for promotion, it then directs a mandatory review and full-scoring of the record against benchmark records. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of 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 (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.
It appears that the responsible officials applied appropriate standards in effecting the separation, and we do not find persuasive evidence that pertinent regulations were violated or that applicant was not afforded all the rights to which entitled at the time of discharge. Under our broader mandate and after careful consideration of all the facts and circumstances of applicant's case, the majority of the Board is persuaded the applicant has been a productive member of society. Applicant's...
The Secretary of the Air Force, after reviewing all the facts and the applicant’s submissions, concluded that he should be disenrolled and ordered to repay the Government for the cost of the Academy education. After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record, and noting the applicant’s contentions, we are not persuaded the applicant was denied due process during his disenrollment proceedings and his behavior at the USAFA did not constitute misconduct under 10 USC 2005. Prior to his...
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The DAFSC with an effective date of 24 Aug 95, and the aeronautical/flying data on his Officer Selection Brief (OSB) were in error. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Directorate of Assignments, AFPC/DPAIS1, reviewed this application and indicated that the applicant’s DAFSC of “W12B1Y” was consistent with the OPR on file. ...
He be paid for duty he would have performed had he been allowed to continue serving in the Air National Guard (ANG) until his planned retirement date of 30 April 1998; i.e., 13 active duty (AD) days, 4 Unit Training Assemblies (UTAs) for April 1998, and 6 Additional Flying Training Periods (AFTPs) in March and April 1998. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant's military records, are contained in the official documentation provided by 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's counsel 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.
ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-01126 INDEX CODE: 111.01 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: Yes _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Airman Performance Report (APR) rendered for the period 17 May 88 through 7 Mar 89 be declared void and removed from his records and that he be granted immediate promotion to the grade of chief master sergeant. On 8 Feb...
Applicant's submission is at Exhibit A. Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Washington, D.C., provided an investigative report which is attached at Exhibit C. The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit D). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit E). RICHARD A. PETERSON Panel Chair Exhibits: A.
The decedent and the applicant married on 4 Jun 79 and coverage and premiums were reinstated on the first anniversary of their marriage. As a result of the CG’s decision, the AFBCMR advised the applicant by letter dated 17 Sep 98 that, since the Board lacked the authority to approve claims that were filed more than six years after the death of the service member, her case was being returned and administratively closed (Exhibit D). Notwithstanding her on again/off again marriage to the...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-01358 (Case 2) INDEX CODE: 126.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: A Letter of Reprimand (LOR), dated 14 Oct 97, and an Unfavorable Information File (UIF), dated Nov 97, be removed from her permanent records. The applicant provided copies of the 14 Oct 97 LOR, issued by her flight commander,...
However, the Air Force would only grant half-time for work experience and, because the NCA and ASCP were the only certifying agencies accepted by the Air Force, would only credit her work experience from Aug 93 when she received her certification from the ASCP. The applicant was advised of the CSC computation error and the change in grade and pay. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 12 Sep 99, w/atchs CHARLENE M. BRADLEY Panel Chair AFBCMR 98-01533 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having...
_________________________________________________________________ RESUME OF THE CASE: On 18 Feb 99, the Board considered and denied an application pertaining to the applicant, in which he requested that his records be corrected to reflect promotion to the Reserve grade of colonel (see AFBCMR 98-01663, with Exhibits A through E). As to his ability to perform duty as an O-6, there was absolutely no question. A complete copy of the applicant’s request for reconsideration is at Exhibit...
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). The facts and opinions stated in the advisory opinion appear to be based on the evidence of record and have not been rebutted by applicant.
The actions of the applicant clearly meet the criteria for award of the Airman’s Medal. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Director, SAF Personnel Council, SAFPC, reviewed the application and states that the Secretary of the Air Force Awards and Decorations Board unanimously voted to approve the award of the Airman’s Medal for the applicant. The Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) states he did not meet the criteria for award of the...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Commander’s Programs Branch, AFPC/DPSFC, reviewed this application and states that when an enlisted member retires, as the applicant has done, the UIF and its contents are destroyed. He was only required to report, even the slightest possibility, that an Air Force member was being racially discriminated against. Applicant's complete response is attached at Exhibit...
He was advised that his wife’s SBP annuity would be offset by DIC. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Prior to his disability retirement, effective 20 Jul 68, the applicant made an election under the RSFPP. However, his surviving spouse receives a refund of SBP premiums resulting from the reduction to the SBP annuity after the VA awards DIC.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO: 98-02170 INDEX NUMBER: 128.02 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The weight ticket he obtained on 31 July 1998, be accepted in lieu of the certified weight ticket he lost after a Do-It-Yourself (DITY) move in 1992, so that the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) can discontinue garnishing his...
In a letter, dated 8 December 1999, the applicant requests assignment to the XXXX CES at XXXX AFB. THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that his request for assignment to the XXXX Civil Engineering Squadron, XXXX AFB, XXXX, was approved by competent authority. The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibits A-F. Record of Proceedings, dated 21 Sep 99, w/atchs.
In a letter, dated 8 December 1999, the applicant requests assignment to the XXXX CES at XXXX AFB. As such, the majority of the Board recommended and the Director, Air Force Review Boards Agency approved, the correction of the applicant’s records to show that he was not selected for retraining; remained in Air Force Specialty Code 3E4X1; was promoted to the grade of master sergeant, effective and with date of rank (DOR) of 1 October 1998; and was reassigned to the XXXX Civil Engineering...
DPAPS1 stated that applicant’s OPR closing 20 Oct 97 reflects the DAFSC as “62E3G.” This is mirrored under his duty history segment on the PDS and is correct based on the above mentioned OPR. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit F. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant stated that if a change to the OPR is necessary to change his duty history, then he concurs with AFPC/DPAPS1’s recommendation...
He also requests that the Board remove a Letter of Admonishment (LOA) from his record. The acting hospital commander refused to sign his application on the grounds that he was a subject of a command directed investigation. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice warranting his release from his Palace Chase contract and resignation from the Air Force; and the Air Force pay him $2,326.90.
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Applicant was discharged from active duty on 25 November 1996 after serving 1 month and 17 days of active duty and received an Entry Level Separation, Uncharacterized, with a narrative reason for separation of (Failed Medical/Physical Procurement Standards) and an RE Code of “3A.” RE 3A reflects: “First-term, nonprior service, females who enlisted into the Air Force and ‘it was later discovered they...
________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and states that the AF Form 694 presented as evidence is signed, but she does not recall signing such a form waiving her rights to survivor benefits. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of probable...
________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and states that the AF Form 694 presented as evidence is signed, but she does not recall signing such a form waiving her rights to survivor benefits. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of probable...
On 21 Apr 80, the Board considered and denied an application pertaining to the applicant, in which he requested that his records be corrected to show that he was discharged because of medical reasons (Exhibit C). Regarding the applicant’s request that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable, we note that in earlier findings, a determination was made that there was insufficient evidence to warrant any corrective action regarding the applicant’s request for upgrade of his...
Applicant was advised that Public Law 105-261, effective 17 October 1998, provided an opportunity for retirees to enroll in the SBP during a one-year open enrollment period beginning 1 March 1999 through 29 February 2000 (Exhibits A through D). On 15 November 1999, the Board reconsidered the application and found insufficient evidence to warrant a change to the applicant’s records (Exhibits G through K). In a letter to the President, dated 14 February 2000, the applicant requests...
On 20 July 1999, the Board considered the additional documentation provided by the applicant, as well as an FBI report, and found no basis to overturn its earlier determination denying the applicant’s request. By letter, dated 2 November 1999, the applicant requested reconsideration of his appeal and submitted a Certificate of Pardon, issued on 23 April 1991, for the Board’s consideration (Exhibit F). PATRICIA J. ZARODKIEWICZ Panel Chair MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE...
Failure to provide effective counsel during the administrative discharge board and board appeal process. DPPRS recommended the applicant’s request be denied (Exhibit D). Because applicant had a history of missed medical appointments, he received an Article 15 for his failure to go and his commander initiated an administrative discharge 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). The facts and opinions stated in the advisory opinions appear to be based on the evidence of record and have not been rebutted by applicant.
The only issue for the Board to consider is amending his WD AGO Form 53-55, block #34, to show he injured his right knee. The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). Accordingly, applicant's request is denied.
151, dated 1 June 1944, noted that applicant’s separation documentation should be corrected to reflect the grade of first lieutenant. Based on this review an AFPMC Form 69, Certification of Information for Retirement Pay, was completed which listed the applicant’s active duty grade as second lieutenant, his grade for retirement pay purposes as first lieutenant, and his disability rating as 30%. However, in 1979, the Office of Disability Retirement completed an AFPMC Form 69, Certification...
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant enlisted in the regular Air Force on 22 Mar 95, in the grade of E-3. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: The BCMR Medical Consultant reviewed this application and recommended no change in the applicant’s records. AFPC/DPPD’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S...
___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Director of Personnel Program Management, ARPC/DPP, reviewed this application and recommended denial. Exhibit B. Exhibit E. Letter from the applicant, dated 17 April 2000.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-02972 INDEX CODE: 110 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 5 May 82, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFM 39-12 (Request For Discharge for the Good of the Service) with service characterized as under other than honorable...
However, after a review of the available evidence, we believe that there is sufficient evidence to raise doubt whether the accident occurred as a result of the applicant’s intentional misconduct or willful neglect. While he did not interview the applicant, as required by regulation and resulted in a determination that the investigation was legally insufficient, based on his discussion with the applicant’s first sergeant, he choose to believe the applicant’s version of the event. ...
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.
The case is then reviewed by the Superintendent, who considers the recommendation of the ARC and the cadet’s entire record. Following the ARC proceedings, the Superintendent reviewed the case and the cadet record and ordered the applicant’s disenrollment. USAFA/JA also states that he contacted the applicant’s Air Officer Commanding (AOC) and denied harassing the applicant at any time.
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). The facts and opinions stated in the advisory opinions appear to be based on the evidence of record and have adequately rebutted by counsel.
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's requests 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). Counsel’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.
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.
A copy of a Summary Report of Inquiry prepared by HQ PACAF/JAC regarding applicant’s allegations that Senior Master Sergeant K is alleged to have caused applicant to receive punishment in forms of a letter of admonishment (LOA) and an Article 15 is attached at Exhibit G. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Deputy Chief, Military Justice Division, Air Force Legal Services Agency, AFLSA/JAJM, reviewed this application and states that the...