RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-00931 INDEX CODE: 111.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Officer Selection Record (OSR) for the CY00A Colonel Medical Corps (MC) Central Selection Board be corrected to include her certificate of board certification and documentation to show her qualification as a flight surgeon. ...
AFBCMR 01-00934 INDEX NUMBER: 128.00 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...
When requesting an entire report be voided, the applicant must take into consideration that any complimentary comments on the contested report will also be removed from the records if the request is approved. The report can be corrected administratively by changing the rater’s grade to master sergeant, closing the EPR on 9 October 1997 (the day before the member was demoted and moved to another section), and the “number days” supervision to 192. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation...
The appropriate Air Force office 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.
He further states that on previous moves he had around 3,500 pounds of professional gear. He has been given credit for 4,108 pounds of professional gear and his debt was reduced from $3,122.62 to $1458.89. It appears to the Board that the applicant’s case was fairly evaluated and that he has received appropriate relief.
For this misconduct, he received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) on 14 Aug 95. c. On or about 7 Aug 95, he failed to go to a mandatory appointment. A legal review was conducted by the Deputy Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) who found the applicant’s file legally sufficient to support the commander’s recommendation that the applicant be discharged from the Air Force for Minor Disciplinary Infractions with a General discharge. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached 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). 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.
INDEX CODE: 121.02 AFBCMR 01-00947 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 remaining 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. The recommending official determines the level of decoration, and the applicant has not provided any documentation from the official who recommended him for the Air Force Achievement (AFAM), explaining why the applicant was not recommended for an Airman’s Medal for the incident mentioned in the AFAM. A...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-00950 INDEX CODE: 111.05, 131.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period 12 Jul 96 through 11 Jul 97 be removed from her records and she be considered by Special Selection Board (SSB) for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel. In...
The medical doctor recommended that he be considered for appearance before a Board of Officers (BO) with a view toward his separation from the Air Force. In addition, he was requested to provide information pertaining to his activities since leaving the service (see Exhibit F). Based on a review of the limited post- service evidence provided and in view of the contents of the FBI Identification Record, we are not persuaded that an upgrade of applicant’s discharge is warranted on the basis...
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided 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.
His corrected record be considered by any Senior Service School (SSS) candidacy/designation/selection boards and by any colonel selection boards that the now voided OER rendered for the period 17 February 1987 through 1 January 1988, was a matter of record. On 15 June 1995, the Board favorably considered applicant’s request that the OER rendered for the period 17 February 1987 through 1 January 1988 be declared void and he be considered for promotion by SSBs for the CY92A, CY93 and CY94 Col...
AFBCMR 01-00954 INDEX NUMBER: 112.05 MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION BEFORE THE AFBCMR SUBJECT: xxxxxxxxxx, xxx-xx-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...
On 7 Jan 52, the Senior Training Officer observed the applicant very closely since it was brought to his attention by applicant’s Flight Leader that applicant had enuresis. The physician recommended the applicant appear before a Board of Officers for consideration for administrative discharge from the Air Force under the provisions of AFR 39-16 because of enuresis. On 18 Jan 52, applicant’s commander recommended the applicant be discharged from the Air Force with a general discharge for...
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request concerning his training courses 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 01-00959 INDEX NUMBER: 100.03 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...
INDEX CODE: 121.03 AFBCMR 01-00961 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...
_______________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Promotion, Evaluation, and Recognition Division, AFPC/DPPP, evaluated this application and recommends denial of the applicant’s request. On the OPR closing 1 Nov 98, the applicant believes the wrong person wrote this report, the evaluators forged the signature dates, and the report was late to file. Exhibit D. Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 24 May 01 Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 15 Jun 01.
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Director of Personnel Program Management, ARPC/DPP, reviewed the application and states that in accordance with Title 10 USC, Section 12731, in order for a service member to be eligible for retired Reserve pay, the service member must complete at least 20 years of satisfactory service with the last six years of service in a Reserve component. In reviewing the service member's record he had over 19...
AFPC/DPPPO noted that the Office of the Inspector General (DoD) stated, “The overall allegation that Air Force officers working on special access and highly classified programs were at a disadvantage during the promotion process because their performance reports could not include classified information was not substantiated. It is further recommended that his record, to include the attached PRF prepared for the CY99B selection board, be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant...
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 23 July 1975. A complete copy of their evaluation, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states that there seems to be some misconception on what he is asking for from the Board. As the record...
_______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: It was pointed out to him by a reviewer at the Air Force Personnel Center during a non-selection record review that the OPR closing out 1 May 98 was a primary cause of his non-selection for promotion to lieutenant colonel. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. ______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant responded to the Air...
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 applicant further states that the ROE prescribed within Air Force Instructions (AFIs) were violated during the completion of his OPR and PRF. The applicant states that to change an overall rating on a PRF to “Definitely Promote” (DP) requires concurrence of both the senior rater and MLR president. The applicant reiterates that he has the concurrence of his senior rater with a new PRF and a “DP” promotion recommendation.
Members of the Board, Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Mr. Jay H. Jordan, and Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr., considered this application on 22 May 2001. Panel Chair Attachment: Ltr, AFPC/DPPTR, dtd 1 May 2001 AFBCMR 01-00971 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 Military Records is...
Members of the Board Mr. Henry Romo, Jr., Mr. Albert F. Lowas, Jr., and Mr. John E. Pettit, considered this application on 14 June 2001. HENRY ROMO, JR. Panel Chair Attachment: Ltr, USAF/ILTT, dtd 14 May 2001 AFBCMR 01-00976 INDEX CODE: 128.14 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...
___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His six-year UNT ADSC is incorrect because Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2107, Active Duty Service Commitments (ADSC) and Specified Period of Time Contracts (SPTC), dated 1 September 1998, Table 1.4, Note 3b, states, “Individuals graduating from military service academies and AFROTC programs on 1 January 1992 or later incur a 5- year and 4-year ADSC respectively.” Applicant’s complete statement and...
INDEX CODE: 131.09 AFBCMR 01-00982 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...
AFBCMR 01-00984 INDEX CODE: 111.02, 111.05 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 01-00990 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 Board consequently found the member unfit for military service for his condition of asthma and recommended he be discharged with severance pay with a 10 percent disability rating. The evidence of record indicates that the applicant was honorably discharged by reason of physical disability, with entitlement to severance pay after being diagnosed with asthma. We took note of the applicant’s requests that his records be corrected to show that he was not discharged by reason of...
Although the citation was not present in applicant’s OSR for the board’s review, the selection board had his entire officer selection record (including the OSB reflecting the DMSM, 1OLC) at their disposal during promotion consideration. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 1 Jun 01 for...
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.
AFBCMR 01-01002 INDEX CODE: 131.05 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...
___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His six-year UNT ADSC is incorrect because Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2107, Active Duty Service Commitments (ADSC) and Specified Period of Time Contracts (SPTC), dated 1 September 1998, Table 1.4, Note 3b, states, “Individuals graduating from military service academies and AFROTC programs on 1 January 1992 or later incur a 5- year and 4-year ADSC respectively.” Applicant’s complete statement and...
He did not meet the flying proficiency standards of the USAF Weapons School and his training report is an accurate reflection of that fact.” The AFPC/DPPP evaluation is at Exhibit C. The Chief, B-2/B-52 Bomber Assignment, AFPC/DPAOC, stated that the DAFSC should be corrected to read Q12B3C on the training report. The applicant agrees with AFPC/DPAOC that the DAFSC on the training report should be Q12B3C (Exhibit F-2). We noted the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits 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). The facts and opinions stated in the advisory opinion appear to be based on the evidence of record and have not been adequately rebutted by applicant. Available Master Personnel Records C. Advisory Opinion D. AFBCMR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinion E. Post Service Letter F. Applicant’s Responses G. FBI Report
INDEX CODE 102.00 AFBCMR 01-01007 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...
AFBCMR 01-01008 INDEX CODE: 137.00 MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION BEFORE THE AFBCMR SUBJECT: APPLICANT, SSN 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...
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 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.
On 13 Nov 52, applicant was convicted by Summary Court-Martial for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 30 Oct 52 until on or about 12 Nov 52. The Board recommended discharge from the service because of unfitness, with an undesirable discharge. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that on 9 Dec 1953, he was discharged with...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-01016 INDEX CODE 106.00 COUNSEL: No HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His 1998 general discharge from the Air National Guard (ANG) be upgraded to honorable. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable injustice regarding the applicant’s request to have his general...
The flying status section of the applicant’s 21 Aug 00 Officer Pre- selection Brief (OPB) for the CY00A board reflected “CONDL HDIP NON RATED-ACT AIRCREW MEMBER” (Conditional Hazardous Duty Incentive Pay, Non-rated, Active Aircrew Member). A copy of the letter and Instruction Sheet is provided at Exhibit C. The applicant was considered but not selected for promotion by the CY00A board, which convened on 28 Nov 00. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate 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 (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: 01-01022 INDEX NUMBER: 110.03 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Date of Separation (DOS) be changed to 28 years of commissioned service or at least until announcement of the results of the CY2003 Colonels Promotion board. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the...
2005.” DPAME states that the applicant has been aware of the debt since November 1994 and has not responded to the numerous letters from DFAS regarding payment of the debt. As of this date, this office has received no response (See Exhibit D). After reviewing the evidence of record, the Board is not persuaded that the applicant has been the victim of an error or injustice.
The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied applicant's request for upgrade of his general discharge on 7 Dec 00. The AFDRB Brief was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit B). DAVID W. MULGREW Panel Chair Exhibits: A.
He recommended the applicant for award of the DFC. A second crewmember (position unidentified, but held the rank of first lieutenant) provided an affidavit stating he had received the DFC “as did several other members of this crew.” He also recommended the applicant be awarded the DFC for his accomplishments as tail gunner and provided a proposed citation. After a thorough review of the evidence presented, to include the statements from members of the applicant’s crew, we are sufficiently...
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: In 1993, while stationed at Dover AFB, DE, she had an elective surgery procedure that was performed at the Malcolm Grow Medical Center (MGMC) at Andrews AFB, MD. Although the procedure was elective, she was placed on TDY orders and reimbursed for her travel expenses. It is further recommended that she be entitled to full reimbursement of travel expenses that she incurred which are normally authorized...