Members of the Board, Mr. Robert W. Zook, Mr. Robert S. Boyd and Mr. Edward C. Koenig, III considered this application on 23 January 2001 ROBERT W. ZOOK Panel Chair Attachment: Ltr, HQ AFPC/DPSFM, dtd 27 Dec 00 AFBCMR 00-03135 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...
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. We noted that consequent to a similar request submitted by the applicant in 1983, orders were...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPD, reviewed the application and recommends denial. After careful consideration of applicant's request and the available evidence of record, the Board majority finds insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant corrective action. RICHARD A. PETERSON Panel Chair MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILTARY RECORDS (AFBCMR) SUBJECT: AFBCMR Application...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-03139 INDEX CODE: 128.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be reimbursed for two self-procured commercial airline tickets, totaling $615.97. After the funeral, the applicant’s mother-in-law was to fly from Miami to Philadelphia, PA, while she waited for government provided transportation...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-03141 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general discharge be upgraded and his Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed from “2B” to “3A.” _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His discharge was inequitable and his service should have...
Applicant’s submission is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and provides a response which is attached at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 23 Mar 01 Exhibit D. Applicant’s Response, dated 11 Apr 01.
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). Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.
Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice warranting corrective action regarding the “Assistant Staff Judge Advocate” entry, with an effective date of 1 Jan 92, and the Command Level entry with an effective date of 27 Jul 98, in the Assignment History Section of the applicant’s OSB. Concerning the applicant’s requests that her CY99B OSB be amended in the Assignment History Section by removing the “Assistant Staff Judge...
INDEX CODE: 137.02 AFBCMR 00-03149 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...
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.
AFBCMR 00-03153 INDEX CODE: 110.00 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. Members of the Board Ms. Patricia J. Zarodkiewicz, Mr. Albert F. Lowas, Jr., and Mr. Thomas J. Topolski, Jr. considered this application on 14 February...
They further state however, if the comments in the OPR were not based solely on the Peer Review Board but on the rater’s assessment of applicant’s performance throughout the rating period, then the report is technically correct. After reviewing the evidence of record, the Board majority is not persuaded that the contested report is either in error or that the applicant has been the victim of an injustice. Based on the above and without the support of the applicant’s rating chain, the...
The applicant appealed the contested report under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluations Reports. After reviewing the evidence submitted with this appeal, the Board majority notes that the applicant has not submitted any supporting documentation from the rating chain and has failed to provide sufficient evidence showing that the contested report was not an accurate assessment as rendered. The majority finds no evidence that the rating chain could not...
The SFOI were provided with the subordinate’s answering machine cassette containing phone messages allegedly from the applicant’s wife to the subordinate’s wife and an argument between the applicant and the subordinate’s wife; LTC H’s 7 Sep 99 MFR regarding the tape and his meeting that day with the subordinate and his wife, who indicated she lied when she initially denied having a sexual relationship with the applicant; and a computer history log containing conversation between the...
AFBCMR 00-03165 INDEX NUMBER: 121.03 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 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. Gregory H. Petkoff, Mr. Jackson A. Hauslein, and Ms. Barbara J. White-Olson, considered this application on 22 February 2001. Panel Chair Attachments: 1. Ltr, AFPC/DPPRS, dtd Jan 17, 01 AFBCMR 00-03167 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...
AFBCMR 00-03168 INDEX CODE: 131.09 MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION BEFORE THE AFBCMR SUBJECT: Having carefully reviewed this application, we agree with the recommendation of the Air Force 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 Chief...
No new evidence is provided for the Board to consider (see Exhibit C). AFPC/DPPPO recommends the application be time-barred. A promotion recommendation, be it a DP or anything else, is just that, a recommendation.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-03176 INDEX CODE: 111.01; 131.00 APPLICANT COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) covering the period 18 March 1992 through 21 January 1997, be corrected and he be considered for promotion to the grade of colonel by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for the...
While there is no disputing the fact that the applicant did accrue a debt to the government for his education, the Board majority noted that his wife suffers from recurrent major clinical depression, he has two children, over $100,000 in debts, and he has been supporting his family on a reduced income. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-03182 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her reenlistment eligibility (RE) and separation codes be changed to allow her to enlist in the Coast Guard. Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A. A complete copy of the AFDRB brief is attached at Exhibit...
AFBCMR 00-03184 INDEX CODE: 112.03 MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION BEFORE THE AFBCMR SUBJECT: Having carefully reviewed this application, we agree with the recommendation of the Air Force 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 Chief...
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.
AFBCMR 00-03189 MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION BEFORE THE AFBCMR SUBJECT: Having carefully reviewed this application, we agree with the recommendation of the Air Force 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 Chief of Staff signed by...
INDEX CODE: 128.05 AFBCMR 00-03190 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...
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). 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.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-03196 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to honorable. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Military Personnel Management Specialist, Separations...
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, 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.
A WD AGO Form 38, Report of Physical Examination of Enlisted Personnel Prior to Discharge, Release from Active Duty or Retirement, indicates that the applicant fractured his nose in B-17 airplane crash in Nov 44 in England. According to DPPPR, to be awarded the Purple Heart Medal, a member must provide documentation to support he was wounded as a direct result of enemy action and must have received medical treatment by medical personnel. DPPPR noted that the applicant’s request was...
The member and his current spouse married on 17 February 1996, but he failed to advise the finance center that he did not want to extend SBP coverage to his new wife before the first anniversary of their marriage (17 February 1997). A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 30 March...
A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR STAFF EVALUATION: Applicant’s counsel reiterates that the applicant wishes to have his PRF corrected to show the correct duty title and mission description and reconsideration for promotion by the promotion board. In fact, the senior rater states that he is not convinced that the MLRB members would have scored the applicant’s record...
INDEX CODE: 121.03 AFBCMR 00-03207 MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION BEFORE THE AFBCMR SUBJECT: APPLICANT 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...
As of this date, this office has received no response (Exhibit C). ___________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that he was reclassified into the Air Crew Life Support career field on 18 April 2000 and that competent authority authorized his receipt of an initial enlistment bonus in the amount of $2,000.00. CHARLENE M. BRADLEY Panel...
Therefore, we recommend her records, to include the MSM, be evaluated by a Special Review Board (SRB) for the FY00 board. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, to include the Meritorious Service Medal awarded for the period 6 November 1996 through 30 November 1998, be considered for promotion to the Reserve grade of major by Special Review Board...
Current Air Force policy (AFI 36-2502) dictates that in order to be credited for a specific promotion cycle, the close-out date of a decoration must be on or before the promotion eligibility cutoff date (PECD) and the award must be placed in official channels [date the RDP is signed] before the selections for that cycle are made. The author of the award and the applicant’s former commander assert that the RDP was placed in official channels in time but, due to the organization’s flawed...
AFBCMR 00-03215 INDEX NUMBER: 112.07 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...
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.
According to DPPPWB, based on the applicant’s DOR to senior airman of 15 Feb 00, the first time she will be eligible to be considered in the promotion process to staff sergeant would be cycle 01E5. The evidence of record indicates that the applicant was promoted to the grade of airman on 15 Aug 97, rather than 15 Jul 97 when she would have completed the minimum six months TIG for promotion to airman. Exhibit D. Letter, applicant, dated 22 Jan 01.
INDEX CODE: 112.05, 112.03 AFBCMR 00-03226 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...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-03228 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. 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 exits to grant...
If it had he would not have separated from the Air Force. DPPRR states that on page 30 of the applicant’s original package, it is clearly documented that in October 1990, the applicant was diagnosed with Sarcoidosis and in April 1994 with Hepatitis C. The BCMR Medical Consultant’s letter dated 13 August 2001 further states that the member was aware of his medical condition at the time of separation. The applicant’s medical records clearly show that he was diagnosed with “Hepatitis C” in...
INDEX CODE: 112.06 AFBCMR 00-03231 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...
The available relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s reconstructed military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force. Based on the activities reflected in the FBI report, we also find no compelling reason to warrant upgrading his discharge on the basis of clemency. Exhibit C. FBI Report.
Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A. On 30 Sep 99, applicant’s supervisor did not recommend her for reenlistment due to the referral EPR. A complete copy of the their evaluation, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and provided a five-page letter responding to the advisory opinions.
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Skills Management Branch, AFPC/DPPAE, reviewed the application and states that applicant initialed the counseling section of the extension document indicating that he was aware and understood that he could reenlist versus extend. Furthermore, the applicant has not provided any evidence to substantiate that the MPF failed to properly do their job despite his initials on the extension document...
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.
If the referral EPR closing 11 Dec 96 is removed as requested, the applicant would normally be entitled to supplemental promotion consideration to technical sergeant beginning with the 97E6 cycle provided she is recommended by her commander and is otherwise qualified. However, as a result of her circumstances, the applicant has not received an EPR subsequent to the referral EPR (reason for ineligibility), has not taken the required promotion tests, and has not been considered or recommended...