His disenrollment was primarily caused by his conviction for an honor violation by the Wing Honor Board (WHB) although his WHB conviction had been set aside due to irregularities and should not have been considered as a factor in his disenrollment. The Superintendent, after reviewing the recommendations from the MRC, Commandant of Cadets and the Academy Board, also recommended applicant’s disenrollment. We note that one of the applicant’s commanding officers clearly indicates in his...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-01155 INDEX CODE: 131.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The duty title on his Officer Selection Brief (OSB) be changed from “Staff Psychiatrist to “Outpatient Mental Health Element Chief” and he be considered by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for promotion by the CY00A Central Colonel...
________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant completed 26 years of active service and retired effective 1 May 1989 in the grade of master sergeant (E-7) due to maximum years of service allowed by policy. The applicant requests that his records be corrected to show disability retirement for degenerative lumbar spine disease, his treated eye condition (lattice degeneration with retinal holes), and pseudofolliculitis barbae. There is no...
The appropriate Air Force offices 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. 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). 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.
AFBCMR 01-01161 INDEX NUMBER: 128.00 MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION BEFORE THE AFBCMR SUBJECT: XXXXXXXXXXXX, 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...
AFBCMR 01-01166 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...
Records did not support his contention that he was diagnosed with bipolar disorder while in the Air Force nor in the intervening four and half years since his discharge. He was punished under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), on 14 Jun 96, for being incapacitated for the proper performance of his duties due to previous overindulgence of alcohol and making a false official statement, a violation of Articles 134 and 107, UCMJ. He received two nonjudicial punishments for...
On 15 September 1966, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied the applicant’s requests for upgrade of his discharge and a waiver to reenlist (Exhibit C). The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit D). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit E).
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-01173 INDEX CODE 107.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded a 10% increase in his retired pay (retroactive to his date of retirement) based on extraordinary heroism in connection with his receiving the Airman’s Medal. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s...
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.
AFBCMR 01-01179 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...
We noted that the appropriate Air Force offices indicated that the applicant’s character of service (under honorable conditions) honorable and RE code of 3C (First-term airman not yet considered under the Selective Reenlistment Program (SRP)) on his DD Form 214 were erroneous entries. 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 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 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 responses 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.
In support of his request, applicant submits a personal statement, a copy of the contested OPR and reaccomplished OPR, a copy of the contested PRF and revised PRF, statements of support from his rating chain and Management Level Review (MLR) President, the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) decision and additional documents associated with the issues cited in his contentions (Exhibit A). _________________________________________________________________ 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). 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: 128.05 AFBCMR 01-01194 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 01-01199 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 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 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 (Exhibit D). Applicant's widow'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.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-01206 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Mandatory Separation Date (MSD) be extended to a date not to exceed 1 May 2002. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to...
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.
Her complete submission is at Exhibit A. Her records indicate she is currently being compensated by the DVA (see Exhibit D). Had it been determined that she was found unfit for continued military service while performing her initial active duty training, which is a distinctively separate issue, Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) processing would have been appropriate.
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.
DPPPO indicated that although the citation was not 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). _________________________________________________________________ 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 denied without a personal appearance; and that 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). 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.
Applicant's submission is at Exhibit A. 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 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.
Additional 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. DPPRS recommends that the discharge be upgraded to general (under honorable conditions)(see Exhibit C). JOSEPH G. DIAMOND Panel Chair AFBCMR 01-01221 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...
Ltr, AFBCMR, dated June 4, 2001 3. Applicant’s Ltr, undated AFBCMR 01-01222 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 announced, and it is directed that: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to FORMER MEMBER...
Furthermore, we recommend his corrected record be considered for promotion by an SSB for the CY00A board. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that the Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF), AF Form 709, prepared for the Calendar Year 2000A Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, be declared void and removed from his records...
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. Henry Romo, Jr., Mr. Philip Sheuerman, and Ms. Olga Crerar, considered this application on 3 July 2001. HENRY ROMO, JR. Panel Chair Attachment: Ltr, AFPC/DPPAE, dtd 18 Jun 01 AFBCMR 01-01226 INDEX CODE: 112.07 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF...
After reviewing the supporting documentation submitted by the applicant, we believe that some doubt exists as to whether the rater and indorser were biased in their assessment of applicant’s performance due to a possible personality conflict between the applicant and these evaluators. Further, the statement from the applicant’s former commander, during a portion of the contested time period, reveals that personalities possibly played a part in the ratings on the contested report. TERRY A....
AFBCMR 01-01230 INDEX NUMBER: 131.00 MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION BEFORE THE AFBCMR SUBJECT: xxxxxxxxxxx, USAF, 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...
Accordingly, they recommend that his separation code and narrative reason for separation be changed to “JFF - Secretarial Authority.” Airmen are given entry level separation/uncharacterized service characterization when separation is initiated in the first 180 days of continuous active service. However, since the governing directives do not provide for a narrative reason of “adjustment disorder,” we recommend that the reason for separation be changed to “Secretarial Authority,” with a...
AFBCMR 01-01232 INDEX NUMBER: 131.01 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...
_______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She was selected for promotion to SSgt twice, but never promoted due to weight problems and placement on the Weight Management Program (WMP), problems that were later determined to be medical in nature (diagnosed with severe narcolepsy). Her section commander subsequently requested reinstatement of her selection that was to be effective 1 Apr 99. ...
INDEX CODE: 131.10 AFBCMR 01-01236 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...
His Officer Selection Record (OSR) and Officer Selection Brief (OSB) for the Calendar Year 2000A (CY00A) (6 Nov 00) Colonel Dental Corps (DC) Central Selection Board be corrected to include his certificate of board certification (which has since been corrected), previous Army duty history, Professional Military Education (PME) (which has since been corrected) and decorations. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation, with attachment, is attached at Exhibit D. AFPC/DPPPOO also reviewed...
Members of the Board, Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Mrs. Margaret A. Zook, and Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr., considered this application on 27 June 2001. JOSEPH A. ROJ Panel Chair Attachment: Ltr, AFPC/DPPAE, dtd 10 Jun 01, w/atchs AFBCMR 01-01238 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...
INDEX CODE 128.05 June 28, 2001 AFBCMR 01-01238 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 announced, and it is directed that: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to [applicant], be corrected to show that: a. The...
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. Joseph G. Diamond, Mr. Edward H. Parker, and Mr. Jackson A. Hauslein, considered this application on 25 Jul 01. Panel Chair Attachment: Ltr, ARPC/DPB, dtd 29 Jun 01 AFBCMR 01-01240 INDEX CODE: 131.01 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Under...
His only mistake was not admitting his guilt to his commander at the time of the incident. A day prior to the meeting with his commander he met with his attorney to discuss the evidence against him and was informed that she had not yet seen any evidence for his case. The applicant has provided no evidence of a clear error or injustice related to the nonjudicial punishment proceedings.
The commander, on 25 Jun 56, determined that applicant was guilty of the offenses and imposed punishment consisting of a reduction to the grade of airman first class (permanent) and a reprimand. The commander, on 12 Jul 56, determined that applicant was guilty of the offenses and imposed punishment consisting of reduction to the grade of airman second class (permanent) and a reprimand. Should he provide such evidence (as relayed in our letter), of good conduct for the period of time which...
However, the time to do that is before the report becomes a matter of record. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant responded to the Air Force evaluation and states that the procedure of forwarding the OPR to the base personnel office (for review to assure compliance with prescribed format and completeness of data entries) before being reviewed by the ratee, prevented the discovery of administrative oversights...
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.
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. Richard A. Peterson, Mr. Laurence M. Groner, and Mr. Clarence D. Long III, considered this application on 26 June 2001. RICHARD A. PETERSON Panel Chair Attachment: Ltr, AFPC/DPSFM, dtd 1 Jun 01 AFBCMR 01-01248 INDEX CODE: 121.03 MEMORANDUM...
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: 01-01252 INDEX CODE: 112.00 COUNSEL: CHAGNON W. FRANCIS HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His separation and reenlistment eligibility (RE) codes and narrative reason for separation be changed to reflect convenience of the Air Force. Therefore, we believe that the reason for his separation is unduly harsh...