We further recommend that she be provided supplemental promotion consideration with her corrected records, beginning with cycle 97E6. The following additional documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit H. Record of Proceedings, dated 22 Jun 01, w/atchs. THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ Vice Chair AFBCMR 00-03241 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552, Title...
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. The Special Programs & AFBCMR Manager, HQ AFPC/DPPAES, also evaluated the case and explains why they corrected the applicant’s RE code from “3A” to “2N.” However, if the relief sought is granted, then the author recommends the applicant’s RE code be changed to “3K” (“Reserved for use by HQ AFPC or the AFBCMR when no other RE code applies or is inappropriate [sic].” [The definition for “3K” provided by DPPAES is incorrect because that meaning...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-03243 INDEX CODE: COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His narrative reason for separation on his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be changed to show he was separated to attend school full time in an Officer Training Program. A complete copy of the evaluation is...
The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. In addition, his Airman Performance Report (APR) rendered for the period 30 November 1964 through 16 June 1965 states that he flew 17 missions into Vietnam during the rating period. Although AFPC has administratively corrected his record to reflect award of the AM basic and the Vietnam Service Medal (VSM), there is no evidence he was ever submitted for an additional AM.
Even though the MSM (2OLC) citation and/or special order were not on file in the OSR when the board convened, the board members knew of its existence as evidenced by the entry on the Officer Selection Brief (OSB) and presence of the discrepancy report. Accordingly, the MSM (4OLC) was not required to be on file for the board, nor could it have been since the special order awarding the decoration had not been published when the board convened. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit...
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 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). Counsel’s response is attached 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). 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 Board staff is directed to inform applicant of this decision.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-03258 INDEX NUMBER: 104.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO Applicant requests that her indebtedness to the government as a result of her resignation from the United States Air Force Academy (USAFA) be remitted. 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...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-03259 INDEX CODE: 107.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded the Republic of Korea War Service Medal (KWSM), the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Ribbon/Medal, and the Meritorious Service Medal (MSM). Prior to the return of the records, SAF/MIBR opened a Board case, but it could not be...
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.
AFBCMR 00-03267 INDEX NUMBER: 121.00, 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 and counsel for review and response (Exhibit D). Counsel’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.
INDEX CODE 107.00 AFBCMR 00-03269 MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION BEFORE THE AFBCMR SUBJECT: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 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...
Members of the Board Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, Mr. Joseph A. Roj, and Mr. Lawrence R. Leehy, considered this application on 8 March 2001. Panel Chair Attachment: Ltr, AFPC/DPPAE, dtd Feb 21, 01 AFBCMR 00-03275 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 Records is...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: 00-03277 INDEX CODE 126.02 131.09 129.04 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: Yes _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be reinstated to the grade of E5/staff sergeant (SSgt) and promoted to E6/technical sergeant (TSgt) by setting aside the punishment imposed on him by Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), dated 31 Oct 95,...
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). 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). After careful consideration of your application and military records, the Board determined that the evidence you presented did not demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed this application and states the first time the report was considered in the promotion process was for cycle 99E8 to senior master sergeant (promotions effective Apr 99 - Mar 00). A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...
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.
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant states a Medical Evaluation Board was conducted on 17 August 1999 with referral to the Informal Physical Evaluation Board who, on 29 November 1999, recommended the member be returned to duty for further observation and care. His medical records indicated he was still being treated and evaluated for his lower back pain and his condition was not considered unfitting at the 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 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 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). Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.
On 9 Apr 95, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for failure to report for duty. On 29 May 98, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied applicant’s request that her discharge be upgraded to honorable (see Exhibit C). _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice; that the application was...
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 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 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.
On 23 April 1963, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied applicant’s appeal for an upgrade of his discharge (Exhibit B). Accordingly, they recommend his records remain the same. After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record, we find no impropriety in the characterization of applicant's discharge.
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.
AFBCMR 00-03306 INDEX NUMBER: 100.00 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...
INDEX CODE: 121.03 AFBCMR 00-03307 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...
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: According to DD Form 139, Pay Adjustment Authorization, dated 19 Dec 2000, the applicant incurred excess cost for long delivery out of storage in transit from Montgomery, AL to Auburn, AL. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Commander, Joint Personal Property Shipping Office, JPPSO/CC, recommended denial. If the applicant had requested shipment of his...
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the applicant’s request for the AFCM 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.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-03310 INDEX CODE: 110.00 APPLICANT COUNSEL: NONE SSN HEARING DESIRED: NO Applicant requests his Under Honorable (General) Discharge be upgraded to an Honorable Discharge. 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 Board staff is directed to inform applicant of...
AFBCMR 00-03316 INDEX NUMBER: 121.03 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...
INDEX CODE: 128.00 AFBCMR 00-03317 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 results of his latest MRI show that he has more than degenerative arthritis. In a 30 Jan 98 TDRL evaluation, an orthopedic surgeon noted the applicant had continued symptoms after the operation with no improvement in either his back or leg pain. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In his first letter, the applicant indicates he did agree with the findings 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). Accordingly, applicant's request is denied.
The Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered on him for the period of 6 Mar 97 through 5 Mar 98 be revised. _______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Due to confusion and oversights on appropriate professional military education (PME) endorsements by his Rater, Additional Rater, and Reviewer on the OPR rendered on him for the period 6 Mar 97 through 5 Mar 98, his Reviewer is requesting that the report be revised to correct PME recommendations...
INDEX CODE: 137.04 AFBCMR 00-03323 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...
INDEX CODE 128.01 AFBCMR 00-03324 MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION BEFORE THE AFBCMR SUBJECT: xxxxxxxxxxxx Having carefully reviewed this application, we agree with the recommendation of the Air Staff and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has been the victim of either an error or an injustice. Therefore, under the authority delegated in AFI 36-2603, the applicant's records will be corrected as set forth in the accompanying Memorandum...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-03326 INDEX CODE: 110.00 APPLICANT COUNSEL: NONE SSN HEARING DESIRED: YES Applicant requests his Undesirable Discharge be upgraded. Applicant's military personnel records were destroyed by fire in 1973. The Board staff is directed to inform applicant of this decision.
His immediate commander gave him an LOA after the incident for allegedly disobeying the sentry’s directions and he was issued a written order not to drive in Kuwait and restricting him to the base. However, the order clearly states “your driving privileges are hereby revoked.” What the order does is (1) deny the applicant the right to drive and (2) limit his right to go off base. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/JA...
Her most recent assignment and duty title of Chief, Product Line Division, at Hanscom AFB, MA, effective 26 November 1999, be updated on the officer selection brief (OSB) reviewed by the CY99B Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board; 2. In support, the applicant provided copies of the OSB dated 24 November 1999; a Memorandum for Record--Board Discrepancy Report for Board PO599B, dated 19 November 1999; the Officer Performance Report (OPR) closing 30 October 1999; the order, citation and...
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.
___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Enlisted Promotion and Military Testing Branch, AFPC/DPPPWB, states that if the Board removes the referral EPR as requested, the applicant will be entitled to supplemental promotion consideration for the 00E7 cycle provided he is otherwise qualified and recommended by his commander. Because the applicant’s last EPR was referral closing 1 June 1999 (he did not receive his next EPR until 5 June...
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 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.