Applicant’s request for a fully honorable discharge was considered, however, a review of his overall record does not support a further upgrade. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that at the time of his discharge on 14 September 1982, he was discharged with service characterized as general (under honorable conditions). PEGGY...
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 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). Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.
AFBCMR 01-00147 INDEX CODE: 121.03 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. 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...
The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force. DPRCC states that the applicant was reimbursed for dependent travel based on cost comparison for mixed modes of travel. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, after thorough review of the evidence provided we agree with the opinion and recommendation of...
The applicant was progressively promoted to the Reserve of the Air Force and Air National Guard grade of lieutenant colonel (O-5), with a promotion service date (PSD) of 11 Jan 87 and an effective date of 15 May 87. By ANG Special Order AP-124, dated 5 Jun 98, he was promoted to the Reserve of the Air Force and Air National Guard grade of colonel (O-6), with a PSD and effective date of 30 Jun 96. In the applicant’s case, as a colonel (O-6), he could have served to age 60 or 30 years of...
A similar appeal was filed under AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, which was denied by the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) on 2 Apr 98. The EPR was designed to provide a rating for a specific period of time based on the performance noted during that period, not based on previous performance. A complete copy of their evaluation, with attachment, is attached at Exhibit D. __________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-00156 INDEX CODE: 110.00 APPLICANT COUNSEL: NYS Division VA SSN HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Applicant requests that the reenlistment code (RE) she received be changed or waived to allow her to reenter military service. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS...
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 AFBCMR Medical Consultant is of the opinion that no change in the records is warranted and the application should be denied (Exhibit C). Prior to that date, an evaluation of 30% was assigned for severe, frequent attacks. Accordingly, in view of the foregoing, I believe the applicant’s medical condition at the time of his retirement warrants a higher disability rating.
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.
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 the Executive Director of the Board or his designee. Members of the Board Mr. David C. VanGasbeck, Mr. Edward H. Parker, and Mr. Robert S. Boyd, considered this application on 28 March 2001. Panel Chair Attachment: Ltr, AFPC/DPPRS, dtd 12 Feb 01 AFBCMR 01-00164 INDEX CODE: 110.00 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF...
He had also been given three Article 15s: one for failure to repair and two for violation of IDF Memo 10 - 2, Curfew and Pass Violation. Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided an investigative report which is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Military Personnel Management Specialist, AFPC/DPPRS, reviewed this application and indicated that...
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). 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.
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.
On 18 November 1996, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB), denied applicant’s request for an upgrade of and change of reason for his discharge. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: A majority of the panel finds insufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommends the application be denied. Exhibit B.
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). Applicant’s response to the advisory opinion is at Exhibit E. After careful consideration of applicant's request and the available evidence of record, we find insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant corrective action.
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Recognition Programs Branch, AFPC/DPPPR, reviewed the application and states that there is no indication in the member’s records that he was ever recommended for a decoration or awarded one, such as the AFCM. It is incomprehensible to think that in his father’s entire military career covering World War II, Korea and service up to 1962, that he did not accomplish a specific project, plan or...
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinions were forwarded to the applicant for review and response, within 30 days (Exhibit D). The facts and opinions stated in the advisory opinions appear to be based on the evidence of record and have not been rebutted by applicant.
INDEX CODE: 121.03 AFBCMR 01-00185 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 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.
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request for correction of the former service member’s records to reflect Prisoner of War (POW) status, that his rank of corporal (E-3) be changed to sergeant (E-4), and that he be awarded the Prisoner of War (POW) Medal and Purple Heart Medal, and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinions were forwarded to counsel for review and response (Exhibit D). After careful...
On 26 March 1999, she was honorably released from her active duty assignment and transferred to the Inactive Ready Reserve (IRR), in the grade of technical sergeant, with an RE code of 4H and a SPD code of LBK, and given half pay separation. They recommend the Board deny the applicant’s request to have the action removed from her records. The applicant did receive an Article 15 and her re-enlistment code reflects such.
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Performance Evaluation Section, AFPC/DPPPEP, also reviewed this application and indicated that while the applicant believes the ratings and comments on the EPR are inconsistent with her prior and subsequent evaluations, that does not render the report erroneous or unjust. DPPPEP does not believe that a personality conflict existed between the applicant and the rater. A complete copy of their evaluation is...
The Medical Consultant further states that no error or injustice has occurred in the applicant's case and he recommends no change in the records. However, if the Board were to offer administrative relief, they would recommend changing her separation and narrative reason to "JFF- Secretarial Authority" (Exhibit D). The Chief, Skill Management Branch, Directorate, Personnel Program Management, AFPC/DPPAES, also reviewed the application and states the reenlistment eligibility code "2C" is the...
On 25 September 2000, the Promotion Management Section at AFPC denied the applicant’s request for supplemental promotion consideration for cycle 00E5 because the decoration recommendation was not placed into official channels until after selections for cycle 00E5. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed this application and states that Air Force promotion policy dictates that before a decoration is...
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.
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 applicant’s board score for the 99E8 board was 397.50. The applicant did provide a letter of recommendation from the commander supporting the upgrading of the EPR ratings and changes to his original comments. It is unreasonable to conclude the commander now, over 10 years later, has a better understanding of the applicant’s duty performance for that time period.
ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-00201, Cse 2 INDEX CODE: 111.02 APPLICANT COUNSEL: NO SSN HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: In the applicant’s request for reconsideration, he requests the Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) closing 31 May 90 be removed and replaced with the “5” EPR closing 31 May 90 and in Section V 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). The facts and opinions stated in the advisory opinions appear to be based on the evidence of record and have not been rebutted by applicant.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-00203 INDEX CODE: 107.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC). _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Promotion, Evaluation and Recognition Division, HQ AFPC/DPPPR, reviewed this application and...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-00204 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The date of his medical disqualification be changed from 23 October 2000 to 17 November 2000. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-00207 INDEX CODE: 110.00 APPLICANT COUNSEL: None SSN HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under honorable (general) conditions discharge be upgraded to honorable. Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Washington, D.C., provided an investigative report which is attached...
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 the Executive Director or his designee. Members of the Board Mrs. Barbara A. Westgate, Ms. Carolyn J. Watkins, and Mr. Clarence D. Long III considered this application on 11 April 2001. BARBARA A. WESTGATE Chair Attachment: Ltr, HQ AFPC/DPSFM, dtd 27 Feb 01, with attachment AFBCMR 01-00209 INDEX CODE:...
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). 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. Accordingly, applicant's request is denied.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-00212 INDEX CODE:114.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Officer Performance Report (OPR), AF Form 707B, rendered for the period 7 April 1992 through 17 November 1992 be permanently removed from his official personnel records. After reviewing the documentation submitted, we are convinced...
DPPPO would not object to correcting the duty location in the Personnel Data System (PDS) to reflect Luke AFB. A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and indicated, in part, that although the central promotion board had knowledge of his JSCM, they had a board discrepancy report in place of his JSCM citation. ...
The applicant indicates that one of the enticing incentives his recruiter counseled him about was that his date of rank to senior airman would be adjusted to 11 July 1995; however, after testing and not being selected for promotion to staff sergeant, he realized that his date of rank had not been adjusted as his recruiter had advised. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force...
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinions were forwarded to the applicant for review and response, within 30 days (Exhibit D). Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.
Before his second board met, the rules changed making officers that wrote the board to decline promotion ineligible for separation allowance. The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit C. _______________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant entered active duty on 5 May 1988 and separated in the grade of captain on 10 Oct 99 after being twice passed over for promotion to major. As a result of an ACP agreement he entered into on 10 May 96,...
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: 01-00224 INDEX CODES: 111.02, 126.04 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, imposed on 16 Nov 98, be set aside and removed from his records, and that all rights, privileges, and benefits taken from him because of the Article 15 be restored. A complete copy...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-00226 INDEX CODE: 100.05 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be returned to his Primary Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) of Security Forces Specialist (3PO51). As a result, he was approved for retraining into Personnel (3S0X1), an AFSC he did not request. ...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: 01-00230 INDEX CODE 135.02 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be credited with enough satisfactory years of service to be eligible for Reserve retired pay and that his retired pay grade be master sergeant (MSgt). On 15 May 99, the unit commander indicated the applicant’s performance was not...
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR) SUBJECT: AFBCMR Case on APPLICANT, AFBCMR 01-00232 I have carefully reviewed the circumstances of this case and do not agree with the opinion of the majority of the panel that applicant’s request to have his time in grade or date of rank (DOR) to the grade of Technical Sergeant (TSgt) adjusted to include his previous time in grade as a TSgt, from 1 Jul 86 - 6 Sep 94, while in the Air Force...
AFBCMR 01-00234 INDEX CODE: 137.00 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. 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...
INDEX CODE: 112.05, 112.03 AFBCMR 01-00237 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...
AFBCMR 01-00239 INDEX NUMBER: 137.00 MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION BEFORE THE AFBCMR SUBJECT: XXXXXXXXXXX, xxx-xxx-xxxx 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...