This reviewer concludes that favorable consideration of this request should not be granted and is therefore of the opinion that no change in the records is warranted and the application should be denied. _________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD: A majority of the panel finds insufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommends the application be denied. The majority of the Board voted to deny the requested relief because he knew...
___________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Information extracted from the Personnel Data System (PDS) indicates that the applicant is a rated officer who was appointed a second lieutenant, Reserve of the Air Force on 7 Jun 86 and was voluntarily ordered to extended active duty on 21 Sep 86. An AF Form 77, Supplemental Evaluation Sheet, dated 1 August 1997, documenting the applicant’s break in active duty service from 1 Jun 92 to 16 Apr 97, 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). Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.
The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 3 Nov 00 for review and response within 30 days. To date, the applicant has not provided a response. Therefore, the Board recommends that the record be corrected as indicated below.
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.
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). Accordingly, applicant's request is denied.
The Medical Practice Review Board (MPRB) ignored the opinion of the legal reviewer, who indicated there was a violation of due process. In light of this, neither the applicant’s credentials records nor any other Air Force, DOD, State or professional reporting records should be expunged of the evidence of the applicant’s record of substandard performance and dental practice. Under AFI 44-119 and DOD Instruction 6025.15, the Air Force reports adverse privileging actions to the NPDB for...
It indicates, in part, that the applicant claims he requested (and subsequently was denied) to attend C-141B IQT after having been assigned to XXXX AFB for just 1.5 years in order to “prevent from extending [his] ADSC.” If applicant had been allowed to attend C- 141B IQT at this point in his career (Feb 98), he would have approximately four years and two months left of his UPT ADSC. Applicant believes he was wrong when he stated that applicant “voluntarily requested and accepted the...
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Awards and Decorations Section, AFPC/DPPPR, reviewed the application and states that applicant, along with all crew members who flew evacuation flights, received the Air Medal in recognition for their meritorious achievement. We recognize the periods of these awards will overlap; however, since the Air Medal was awarded for flights in C-46 and C-47 cargo aircraft and the award of Soldier’s Medal is recommended based on voluntary mercy missions flown in L-4J...
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Based on the available records, the applicant was a surgical technician, who served in the Army Air Force from 16 November 1943 until 9 November 1945, at which time he was honorably discharged in the grade of private (E-1). He has provided no documentation to show he was awarded the GCM. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S...
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.
In support of his appeal, applicant submitted two letters of recommendation from the commander of the Air Force Band of the Golden West and the commander of the Air Force Band of Mid-America. A review of the applicant’s military personnel records revealed an AF Form 418, Selective Reenlistment Program Consideration, dated 13 Jan 99, denying him reenlistment. Therefore, as a matter of clemency, we recommend that the applicant’s RE Code be changed to “3K.” This is a code that can be waived...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Officer Promotion Management, HQ AFPC/DPPPOO, reviewed the appeal and provided his rationale for recommending that the applicant be promoted to the grade of captain but effective 1 Jun 00, rather than on the original date of 29 Dec 99. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit C. The Chief, Reserve of the Air Force Selection Board Secretariat, HQ ARPC/DPB, supports the active...
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 applicant’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 disease was not taken into consideration despite medical documentation and testimonies of Air Force medical providers. The disease is recognized and treated worldwide; however Air Force medical providers failed to provide her relief from the signs and symptoms of the disease which led to her failure to comply with Air Force weight standards. On 21 January 1997, the applicant’s body fat measurement was 31% and her promotion to staff sergeant was approved with an effective date of 28...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Promotion Board Secretariat, HQ ARPC/DPB, stated that the applicant provided a copy of the mandatory [in- and above-the- promotion zone (I/APZ)] and Position Vacancy (PV) date of rank (DOR) requirements for the 99 March Chaplains Captain Selection Board. As DPB previously stated, HQ ARPC/HC provided a letter attesting that the IMA chaplains did not have any PV quotas available for the FY00 Captains...
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 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...
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 Air Force Instruction that prohibits the use of hempseed oil came into effect in January 1999. In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a personal statement, AF Form 1359, Report of Result of Trial, the contested EPR closing 30 September 1999, Performance Feedback Worksheet, dated 21 June 1999, and a Memo, Response to Referral EPR, dated 12 January 2000. In view of the above, the majority of the Board recommends the contested EPR be declared void and removed from his...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-02008 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Mandatory Separation Date (MSD) be extended to 24 years. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant's military records, are...
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.
A complete copy of the submission is at Exhibit A. A complete copy of the advisory is at Exhibit C. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force Evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and response. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of...
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be returned without action (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. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, and Mr. Frederick R. Beaman III considered this application on 30 January 2001. THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ Vice Chair Attachment: Ltr, HQ AFPC/JPPSO-SAT/CC, dtd 20 Nov 00, with attachment AFBCMR 00-02023 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...
The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant's counsel for review and response (Exhibit C). 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. DAVID C. VANGASBECK Panel Chair Exhibits: A.
Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Washington, D.C., provided an investigative report which is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Military Personnel Specialist, Separations Branch, AFPC/DPPRS, reviewed this application and states that member’s records show he had repeated infractions and the attempts to rehabilitate him were unsuccessful. Accordingly, we recommend that the...
In DPPD’s view, the applicant has not submitted any material or documentation to show he was improperly rated or processed under the provisions of the military disability laws and policy at the time of his permanent disability retirement. Accordingly, a majority of the Board finds no basis to recommend favorable action on the applicant’s requests. A majority found that applicant had not provided sufficient evidence of error or injustice regarding the applicant’s requests that the Article...
However, an injustice occurred in the narrative reason for discharge being listed as “Personality Disorder.” The current AFI regulating separations for mental health problems does not allow coding for other than “Personality Disorder,” an entirely different DSM-IV code sequence from that with which the applicant was diagnosed. The Consultant recommends that the reason for discharge be changed to “Secretarial Authority.” The RE code should remain unchanged as it reflects the applicant’s...
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He should have received an honorable discharge for medical disability because of his medical condition. On 6 May 1997, The Report of Medical History shows indication of depression and that the applicant was taking an anti-depressant medication. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant, reviewed this application and states 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). Applicant’s response to the advisory 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.
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.
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/counsel 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 counsel/applicant.
ARPC, where his military records were kept, is admitting that there is no record showing he was notified that he was to be considered for the first selection board. Having found no basis to conclude that the applicant’s considerations for promotion were improper or that his separation from active Reserve status in 1959 was erroneous or contrary to law, we have no basis on which to take favorable action with respect to the remainder of the applicant’s requests related to reinstatement in the...
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant asserts he was having marital problems that continued well after divorce and led to situational stress and depression. The applicant’s senator also provided a supporting statement. Exhibit B.
His records have already been corrected to reflect his campaign credit. After reviewing the evidence of record, we are not persuaded that the applicant’s records are in error or that he has been the victim of an injustice. Therefore, we agree with opinion and recommendation of the Air Force and adopt their rationale as the basis for the conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.
The AFDRB brief was forwarded to 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. Accordingly, applicant's request is denied.
On 11 Jan 95, the applicant’s case file was forwarded to the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) with a recommendation that the Secretary of the Air Force (SECAF) direct recoupment in the amount of $27, 401.42 expended on the applicant’s education. On 17 Jan 95, a letter submitted by the applicant dated 7 Jan 95 was forwarded to SAFPC for consideration along with her case file. Exhibit D. Memorandum, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 8 Jan 01.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-02079 INDEX CODE: 100.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The separation code of JBK (Completion of Required Active Service) on her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge From Active Duty) be changed to LCC (Reduction in Force <Full Separation Pay>) to match the reason for separation...
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.
ARPC forwarded a letter to the applicant informing him that his RCSBP election could not be processed because he missed the 90-day time limit required by law. The applicant states that he completed his package and forwarded it to ARPC on 19 Jun 00 and that it was returned ripped and damaged by the post office. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 6 February 2001 under the...
On 28 Jul 97, as a lieutenant colonel, the applicant was punished under Article 15 for two specifications: A. The Board does not agree with the Air Force recommendation to only set aside the specification of the Article 15 dealing with making a false official statement. The Officer Performance Report, AF Form 707A, rendered for the period 2 December 1996 through 3 August 1997, be, and hereby is, amended in section VI, Rater’s Overall Assessment, by removing in its entirety line 9, which...
However, the Board did find sufficient evidence to warrant his supplemental promotion consideration for promotion to the grade of master sergeant for cycles 98E7, 99E7, and 00E7, using his test scores from cycle 01E7 (Exhibit G). _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, Enlisted Promotion and Military Testing, AFPC/DPPPWB, states that the applicant was ineligible to test for cycle 01E7 because of his High...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Recognition Programs Branch, AFPC/DPPPR, reviewed this application and indicated that to be awarded the Purple Heart Medal, a member must provide documentation to support he was wounded as a direct result of enemy action. Accordingly, we recommend that the applicant’s records be corrected to reflect award of the DFC. We note the applicant’s request that his records be corrected to reflect award of...
The applicant’s case file reveals that the Director, Personnel Accountability, HQ AFPC/DPW, requested the applicant’s discharge document be corrected to reflect he was a POW from 22 Feb 45 to 29 Apr 45. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Recognition Programs Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPR, stated that the applicant’s request for award of the Purple Heart (PH) medal was forwarded to the Purple Heart Review Board (PHRB) on 4 Jan 00. ...
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. Applicant filed a rebuttal to her indebtedness claiming she did not get credit for all of her PBP&E, a mattress was missing, items were misidentified on the inventory, and questioning the validity of the shipment weight. The Excess Cost Adjudication Function (ECAF) reviewed her rebuttal and credited her with 363...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-02125 INDEX CODE: 128.09 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be reimbursed $709 for the cost of self-procuring a commercial airline ticket to return to his permanent duty station. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Traffic...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-02132 INDEX CODE 112.07 XXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: No XXXXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be given a constructive reenlistment to permit retirement the first day of the month following High Year of Tenure (HYT) and he be able to sell excessive leave in conjunction with that reenlistment. Exhibit D....
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). 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 B). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response, within 30 days (Exhibit C). 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.