The enclosed Report of Investigation concluded, and they concur, that the actions of the commander in grounding the unit and transferring pilots, including the applicant, to non-flying positions were legitimate exercise of his command authority. However, the NYANG’s response addressed each of these DODIG concerns, in pages 4-5 of the DMNA/ANG- ESSO memorandum, dated 31 Aug 00, and concluded that the administration of the punishment was “legally sound,” and further stated that under NYANG...
She has been in confinement over 6 years and the USDB still does not know how to compute her sentence to confinement or her good conduct time. Before she reaches her minimum release date, she will be considered at least 2 more times for clemency and parole. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: The applicant disagreed with AFLSA/JAJR’s statement concerning the reason she was denied elevation to trustee status,...
_________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that on 8 September 1999, he was separated under the provisions of AFR 36-3208, paragraph 1.2 (Secretarial Authority) with a separation code of JFF and a reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 3K. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 27 Apr 01. THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ Panel Chair AFBCMR...
At that time, the Purple Heart Review Board (PHRB) requested that the applicant provide additional information he may have pertaining to the circumstances surrounding his injuries. 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).
On 26 February 1999, the discharge authority approved the recommendation for discharge and recommended that the Secretary of the Air Force disapprove the applicant’s request to retire in lieu of discharge. c. Based on the court’s decision, the applicant now requests that the ADB findings and recommendation be set aside; that his discharge for misconduct be set aside; and that he be retired effective 1 February 1998. The majority of the Board believes that since the applicant’s civilian...
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 responses to the advisory opinion are 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. RICHARD A. PETERSON Panel Chair Exhibits: A.
INDEX CODE: 112.02 AFBCMR 01-01388 MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION BEFORE THE AFBCMR SUBJECT: APPLICANT Having carefully reviewed this application, we agree with the recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has been the victim of either an error or an injustice. Therefore, under the authority delegated in AFI 36-2603, the applicant's records will be corrected as set forth in...
Based on the firm statement of the FPEB, the evidence of record supports the contention that the applicant was rated properly and that no injustice occurred in his separation processing upon which to recommend favorable consideration of his present request. A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Complete copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-01418 INDEX CODE 110.02 100.06 xxxxxxxxxxx COUNSEL: No xxxxxxxxxxx HEARING DESIRED: Yes _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The narrative reason on her DD Form 214 be changed from “Personality Disorder” to one that more accurately reflects her diagnosis and her military record reflect she is fit for military service. Since the...
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be granted (Exhibit C). The advisory opinions were forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). Available Master Personnel Records C. Advisory Opinions D. SAF/MIBR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinion E. FBI Report F. AFBCMR Ltr Forwarding FBI Report
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.
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 available at the time the application was filed.
After reviewing this Board’s prior recommendation and noting the current evaluation conducted by the Air Force, we recommend that applicant’s record be corrected to show that he received a disability rating of 20 percent at the time of his retirement. Applicant’s request for a disability rating of 30 percent was considered; however, in view of the findings of the evaluation board on 7 May 2001 and since applicant concurred with the rating at that time, we find no basis upon which to...
ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-01438 INDEX NUMBER: 121.03 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Applicant requests that his accrued leave be transferred from the active duty Army to the active duty Air Force. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant...
The Directive made separation pay retroactive back to 5 Nov 90, the day the law was passed. Since the applicant was discharged on 19 Jan 90, she was not entitled to separation pay. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that she should be awarded separation pay.
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force and the Department of the Defense Office of the Inspector General (DOD IG) Report of Investigation (Exhibit C). _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Executive Support Staff Officer, New York Air National Guard (NYANG), DMNA/ANG-ESSO, reviewed this application and recommended denial. The Report of...
AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: The Chief, Awards and Decorations Section, AFPC/DPPPR, reviewed the application and states that a member must provide documentation to support the injury was a direct result of enemy action. Since there is no evidence in the applicant’s records that he has been injured as a direct result of enemy action, they recommend denial of his request to be awarded the PH. The applicant requests award of the PH based on high voltage electrical flash burns he received to his...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-01496 INDEX CODE: 100.07 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records (DD Form 214, Report of Separation from the Armed Forces of the United States) be corrected to reflect his Air Traffic Controller training, ANURD/2 (VHF/DF) training, Tower Chief training, and Control Center training. ...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-01520 INDEX CODE: 102.00, 102.07 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her grade be changed from airman first class to staff sergeant in the Oct 98 time-frame. The Chief states that at no time during her different assignments within the Air Force Reserve did she ever meet the requirements for...
On 18 Apr 86, after consulting counsel, applicant offered a conditional waiver of his rights associated with an administrative discharge board hearing contingent on his receipt of no less than an honorable discharge. His military service was properly reviewed and appropriate action was taken (see Exhibit D). After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that the actions taken to effect his discharge were improper or contrary to...
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board denial of the applicant’s request for the SAEMR (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 available at the time the application was filed.
A complete copy of the Record of Proceedings is at Exhibit E. In a letter to his Congressman, dated 28 April 2001, the applicant requested that he be awarded the MOH (Exhibit F). _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states that he went beyond the call of duty in entering the exploding bomb dump with little regard for his own life to save South Vietnamese airmen. The...
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. Many 1992 USAFA graduates did attend pilot training as a first assignment, and were subsequently placed in 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). 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 at the time the application was filed.
ARPC has no record of receiving an election request from the member. Although the applicant states that his wife was incapacitated due to her illness the documentation submitted does not sufficiently establish that the member was physically or mentally unable to make an election for RCSBP. Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 7 December 2000.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-01652 INDEX CODE: 137.04 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to allow his participation in the Reserve Component Survivor Benefit Plan (RCSBP). After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that relief is...
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an initial and a revised advisory opinion 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 appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinions were forwarded to the applicant and counsel for review and response (Exhibit D). After careful consideration of applicant's request and the available evidence of record, we find insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant corrective action.
The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. The Assistant Adjutant General points out the reasons the applicant was ineligible for promotion; clarifies the allegation that the applicant was prevented from retiring because of Stop Loss; and explains the eligibility requirements for separation benefits. After an exhaustive review of the documentation submitted in support of the appeal, we are not convinced that the applicant submitted his application for transfer to the retired...
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Upon his separation, his SPD code was changed from “LCC” to “JBK.” His DD Form 214 shows him receiving full separation pay with an SPD code of “JBK.” However, he received only half of the separation pay to which he believes he was entitled and which was indicated in the Remarks block of his DD Form 214. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-01691 INDEX CODE: 107.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Recommendation for Decoration Printout (RDP) date on Order #GA-XXX for his Air Force Achievement Medal (AFAM) (2OLC) be changed from 27 August 1998 to a date in November 1997 and the decoration be considered in the promotion process...
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). 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 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 opinion appear to be based on the evidence of record and have not been rebutted by applicant.
The instructions provided to the officer are in bold print and state, “An established DOS and DOS reason are displayed on the Officer Selection Brief if approved prior to the board convening date.” ___________________________________________________________________ ORIGINAL AFBCMR CONSIDERATION: Upon considering all the evidence of this case, the Board was persuaded that the applicant’s DOS on her OSB constituted an injustice. Although Air Force and DOD Instructions regarding officer...
Given that both the commander and first sergeant were present, significant deference should be given to the commander’s determination that the applicant’s actions and words were disrespectful. If the applicant is returned to active duty without a break in service, the referral EPR removed from his records, the two Article 15s set aside, all derogatory data/information expunged from his records (UIF, Control Roster, LOR), providing the AFBCMR directs supplemental promotion consideration, he...
The applicant reported for duty on 29 Mar 93; however, due to security clearance issues, the tour was canceled by HQ AFMC and HQ ARPC/SGR on 23 Apr 93. Points may only be credited to the date a member actually performed the duty. A complete copy of the JAG evaluation is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In his response, the applicant indicated that the Defense Security Service does not and...
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant and counsel for review and response (Exhibit D). While we are not unmindful or unappreciative of the applicant’s service to the Nation, in the absence of evidence to support that he was wounded as a result of enemy action, we agree with the opinion of the Air Force and find no...
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's requests 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 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...
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Counsel reviewed the advisory opinion and furnished a response which is attached at Exhibit E. Applicant also provided a response which is attached at Exhibit F. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. However, since the AF Form 77 which indicated the applicant’s completion of...
According to DPPPR, the Purple Heart Medal is awarded for wounds received as a direct result of enemy action (i.e., gunshot or shrapnel wounds, hand-to-hand combat wounds, forced aircraft bail out injuries, etc.). In DPPPR’s view, there was no evidence in the applicant's records that he had been injured as a direct result of enemy action. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-01810 INDEX CODE: 100.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Report of Separation from Active Duty, DD Form 214, issued on 4 May 1976, be corrected to reflect award of the Purple Heart and that his foreign service was 1 year, 5 months and 14 days rather than 1 year and 20 days. DPAPP1...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-01826 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO Applicant requests that his discharge be upgraded to honorable. The Board staff is directed to inform applicant of this decision. Applicant should also be informed that this decision is final and application was filed.
Members of the Board, Mr. Gregory H. Petkoff, Ms. Barbara J. White- Olson and Mr. George Franklin, considered this application on 11 January 2001. Panel Chair Attachments: 1. Ltr, AFPC/DPPAE, dtd 20 Oct 00 AFBCMR 00-01828 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 decision of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military...
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: 00-01850 INDEX CODE: 110.00 480-13-0897 HEARING DESIRED: _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed so that he can enlist in the Air Force Reserve. On 26 Oct 98, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) upgraded applicant’s discharge to honorable (see Exhibit C). In this regard, we...
On 3 Nov 00, the applicant was notified of his commander’s intent to recommend involuntary discharge from the Air Force for the commission of a serious offense (misconduct cited in the Article 15). On 5 Jul 00, the applicant appealed to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) for an honorable discharge and a different reason and authority for discharge. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, referred the appeal to...
_________________________________________________________________ RESUME OF CASE: On 30 Nov 00, the Board considered and denied an application for correction of military records pertaining to subject applicant requesting that his RE code be changed so that he could reenlist. However, the governing directive did not provide for a coding for other than “personality disorder,” an entirely different DSM-IV code sequence from that with which the applicant was diagnosed; therefore, the Board...
Members of the Board, Mr. Patrick R. Wheeler, Mr. Roger E. Willmeth, and Mr. John E. Pettit, considered this application on 8 February 2001. Patrick R. Wheeler Panel Chair Attachments: 1. FBI Investigative Report AFBCMR 00-01866 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...
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). 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, 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.