It is the appellate authority who reviews the nonjudicial punishment proceedings and evidence considered in punishment. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. ______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 17 Aug 01 for his review and comment within 30 days. _______________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES 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). 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.
However, considering the discharge occurred over 44 years ago and his remarks about his young age, DPPRS recommends clemency. If a check of the Federal Bureau of Investigation files proves negative, DPPRS recommends the discharge be upgraded to a general (under honorable conditions) discharge (Exhibit C). 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, 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.
On 13 July 1978, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge to honorable. 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 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 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.
Applicant’s complete response is attached at Exhibit F. On 17 Aug 01, a copy of the FBI report and a request to provide additional evidence pertaining to his post-service activities was sent to the applicant (Exhibit G). On 23 Aug 01, applicant provided a statement explaining his activities since leaving the service. 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...
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.
AFBCMR 01-01412 INDEX NUMBER: 128.02 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. Members of the Board, Mr. David C. Van Gasbeck, Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, and Mr. Michael J. ROSE M. KIRKPATRICK Chief...
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.
Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice warranting award of the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC). Since the applicant did not meet the local requirement for completion of 30 combat flight missions and has not provided persuasive evidence that he was recommended for the DFC, the majority is not convinced he should be awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross. ...
INDEX CODE: 137.04 AFBCMR 01-01416 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...
In this regard, we are constrained to note that the applicable statute (10 USC Section 1450(f)(3)(C)), time limit for request by former spouse, provides that “An election may not be deemed to have been made under subparagraph (A) in the case of any person unless the Secretary concerned receives a request from the former spouse of the person within one year of the date of the court order or filing involved.” Such a requirement permits a former spouse to circumvent the stipulations of 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 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.
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, advises that supplemental promotion consideration is normally not granted if the error or omission appeared on a member’s Data Verification Record (DVR) or in the Unit Personnel Record Group (UPRG) and the individual did not take the appropriate corrective or follow-up action before the original promotion board convened. The Board majority cannot...
AFBCMR 01-01425 INDEX NUMBER: 128.02 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. Members of the Board, Mr. David C. Van Gasbeck, Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, and Mr. Michael J. ROSE M. KIRKPATRICK Chief...
In support of his application, he submits an Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) letter dated 25 September 2000, copy of the EPR dated 27 January 1997, and AF Form 948 to include the entire package originally submitted to the ERAB (Exhibit A). A similar appeal by the applicant was considered and denied by the Evaluation Report Appeal Board. ___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Performance Evaluations Section, AFPC/DPPPEP,...
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 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 at Exhibit C. _______________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPPR states that since they have no authority to evaluate recommendations for decorations, they recommend that the AFBCMR evaluate the applicant’s request for award of the DFC and decide if...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Assistant NCOIC, Separation Procedures Section, AFPC/DPPRS, reviewed applicant’s request and states that considering the discharge was almost 30 years ago, the type of offenses committed, and the fact that the member received a psychiatrist’s recommendation that he should have been administratively separated, clemency is recommended. Applicant indicated that she does not wish to provide a response to...
Members of the Board Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Ms. Melinda J. Loftin, and Mr. Dale O. Jackson, considered this application on 8 Aug 01. Panel Chair Attachment: Ltr, AFPC/DPPAE, dtd Jul 3, 01 AFBCMR 01-01437 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code, Air Force Instruction 36-2603, and having assured compliance with the provisions of the above regulation, the decision of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records is announced,...
PEGGY E. GORDON Panel Chair Attachment: Ltr, AFPC/DPPD, dtd 24 Sep 01, w/Atch AFBCMR 01-01438 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...
AFBCMR 01-01441 INDEX NUMBER: 100.00 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...
___________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: 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. ___________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD: A majority of the Board finds insufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommends the application be denied. Exhibit B.
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request for the SSM and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit D). The advisory opinions were forwarded to the applicant for review and response (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 Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied applicant's request on 29 October 1997. The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D).
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: 01-01446 INDEX CODE 106.00 110.02 134.00 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: Yes _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her general discharge [upgraded by the Discharge Review Board (DRB) from under-other-than-honorable-conditions (UOTHC)] be upgraded to honorable, all derogatory materials be deleted from her records, and she be reimbursed...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-01454 INDEX CODE: 128.05 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His active duty obligation for sponsorship in the Armed Forces Health Professions Scholarship Program (AFHPSP) be fulfilled prior to his active duty obligation for sponsorship in the Air Force Academy (USAFA). In support of his...
On 11 Sep 84, applicant was notified that his commander was recommending that he be discharged from the Air Force for drug abuse. The applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing. We therefore agree with the recommendation of the Air Force and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered either an error or an injustice.
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). 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). 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 134.01 AFBCMR 01-01458 MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION BEFORE THE AFBCMR SUBJECT: Having carefully reviewed this application, we note that it was not timely filed. However, we believe it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file the application. 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 Director, Air...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-03210 INDEX CODE: 128.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Board make an “affirmation of monies” owed and to correct a “false categorization.” ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His DD Form 785, Record of Disenrollment from Officer...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-01461 INDEX CODE: 131.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He receive Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration by the CY99B (30 Nov 99) (P0599B) and CY00A (28 Nov 00) (P0500A) central lieutenant colonel selection boards due to incorrect duty history entries in his record. The DPAO...
Members of the Board Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Mr. Thomas J. Topolski Jr., and Mr Christopher Carey considered this application on September 11, 2001. PEGGY E. GORDON Panel Chair Attachments: 1. Ltr, AFPC/DPSFO, dtd July 18, 2001, w/Atch AFBCMR 01-01464 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...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-01465 INDEX CODE: 110.00; 110.02 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXX-XX-XXXX HEARING DESIRED: YES ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The narrative reason for his discharge, “Unsuitable-Personality Disorder-Board Waiver,” be removed from his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty; and that...
INDEX CODE: 112.05 AFBCMR 01-01467 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). Accordingly, applicant's request is denied.
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 Board staff is directed to inform applicant of this decision.
JPPSO/CC recommends that the applicant’s records be amended to show that the HHG shipment that was moved by air was moved via surface rates. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that the household goods moved under Government Bill of Lading AP-234989, dated 22 November 1999, moved via surface rates. Exhibit C. Letters,...
The commander indicated in his recommendation for discharge action that prior to entering the Air Force, the applicant was advised that drug use is incompatible with military service. There is no response to this request in the applicant’s record. We also find no evidence of error in this case and after thoroughly reviewing the documentation that has been submitted in support of applicant's appeal, we do not believe he has suffered from an injustice.
The legal facts and wording of the new PRF mirrored those of the original PRF provided to the applicant 30 days prior to the promotion board. The applicant contends that the revised PRF “communicated a less powerful and positive message from the first PRF.” However, the majority notes that the applicant did not provide supporting statements from his senior rater or the MLR president; rather, he only provided the original PRF and revised PRF which was changed by the senior rater at 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.
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). 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 B). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant 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.
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.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-01500 INDEX CODE 110.00 COUNSEL: DONNA M. MESKONY, DVA HEARING DESIRED: NONE _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His 31 July 1985 under-other-than-honorable-conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to general (under honorable conditions). _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: 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.
AFBCMR 01-01502 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...