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). 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.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: 01-01506 INDEX CODE 131.01 111.01 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: She be considered for promotion to the grade of major by Special Selection Board (SSB) for the Fiscal Year 2002 (FY02) Line and Non- Line Majors Selection Board with the Officer Performance Report (OPR) closing 31 Dec 00 in her...
Ltr, AFPC/DPPRS, dtd Nov 7, 2001 AFBCMR 01-01510 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. Should...
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.
INDEX CODE: 110.00 AFBCMR 01-01512 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 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 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.
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 the applicant on 13 July 2001 for review and response within 30 days. In the absence of evidence indicating he was treated differently from other similarly situated members, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary...
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (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. 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 reasonably...
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.
AFBCMR 01-01535 INDEX CODE: 128.14 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...
According to JPPSO, the applicant’s HHG shipment exceeded the maximum authorized weight allowance and in accordance with paragraph U5340, JFTR, she is liable for all transportation costs arising from transportation of HHG in excess of the authorized allowance. The evidence of record indicates that the applicant, after the death of her husband, a former service member, shipped HHG from Virginia to Colorado with a net weight of 29,200 pounds, including 3,057 pounds for the shipment of a POV. ...
AFBCMR 01-01539 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...
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 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.
AFBCMR 01-01542 INDEX CODE: 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 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...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant reviewed applicant's request and recommends that his records be changed to reflect that he was removed from the TDRL and permanently retired with a 70 percent compensable disability rating. In reviewing the disability processing in the applicant’s case, it appears that during his initial TDRL evaluation in December 1972, it was determined by the examining physician that his...
In support of his request applicant provided copies of email communications, documents associated with his request for supplemental promotion consideration, his RDP, his AFAM, his AFAM orders, documents associated with the AFAM recommendation package, extracts from AFI 36-2803, Air Force Awards and Decoration Program; AFI 36-2502, Airman Promotion Program; and the 86 Airlift Wing Awards and Decorations Guide; and, his AF Form 77, Supplemental Evaluation Sheet. Additional relevant facts...
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.
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The AFBCMR Medical Consultant notes 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. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D. The Assistant Chief, Skills Management Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPAE, indicates that the applicant’s RE code...
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.
AFI 36-2803, The Air Force Awards and Decoration Program, 1 January 1998, states that the recommending official determines the decoration and inclusive dates; it also states that decorations will not be based on an individual’s grade, but on the level of responsibility and manner of performance. The applicant provided a copy of his computer-generated Officer Selection Brief, dated 15 November 2000, and it reflects award of only two AFCMs. A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at...
AFBCMR 01-01560 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...
AFBCMR 01-01561 INDEX CODE: 137.00 MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION BEFORE THE AFBCMR SUBJECT: SSAN: Having carefully reviewed this application, we agree with the recommendation of the Air Staff and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has been the victim of either an error or an injustice. Therefore, under the authority delegated in AFI 36-2603, the applicant's records will be corrected as set forth in the accompanying Memorandum for the...
INDEX CODE: 110.02 AFBCMR 01-01562 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 concerning his RE code 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...
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.
Members of the Board, Mr. Frederick R. Beaman, III, Mr. E. David Hoard, and Mr. Roscoe Hinton considered this application on 29 August 2001. FREDERICK R. BEAMAN,III Panel Chair Attachment: Ltr, HQ ARPC/DPPAE, dated 13 Aug 01. AFBCMR 01-01566 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...
The applicant was considered but not selected for promotion to lieutenant colonel by the CY99A promotion selection board. The applicant had sufficient time once the record was corrected to request his letter be withdrawn. _______________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 20 September 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36- 2603: Mr. Teddy L. Houston, Panel Chair Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr.,...
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). Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.
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 provision also stated that within the month of April 2001, any PIRR member could elect to withdraw or reduce their coverage without being charged $20 per month for the maximum coverage of $250,000. The applicant further states that she did not receive the ARPC update and that the website “does not say that the older forms are not valid anymore or that I have to resubmit a form even though I already had one on file.” Additionally, the website contains a section specifically addressing...
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 Absent persuasive evidence applicant was denied rights to which entitled, appropriate regulations were...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-01577 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 30 June 1964, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-17 (Unfitness), with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge. ...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-01578 INDEX CODE: 110.00; 110.02 XXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXX-XX-XXXX HEARING DESIRED: YES ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 2C (Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or, entry level separation without characterization of service) be changed; and the narrative reason...
After careful consideration of applicant's request, we found insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice. The Board staff is directed to inform applicant of this decision. JOHN L. ROBUCK Panel Chair Exhibit: A.
INDEX CODE 110.00 AFBCMR 01-01580 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...
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (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. Should the applicant provide documentation to substantiate that the accident was the direct result of an enemy action, the Board would be willing to entertain a...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-01583 INDEX CODE: 113.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO Applicant requests that her late husband’s records be corrected to show that he had foreign service. However, applicant has provided a copy of her husband’s DD Form 214, (Report of Separation from the Armed Forces of the United States). TERRY A. YONKERS Panel Chair Exhibits: A.
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.
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 applicant contends the citations for the MSM, 1OLC and 2OLC were missing from his OSR. Although the citations were not present in his OSR for the board’s review, the selection board had his entire officer selection record (including the OSB reflecting the MSM, 1OLC and 2OLC) at their disposal during promotion consideration. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...
The applicant states that he had no previous record of drug problems, only this one positive random test result for marijuana. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant states that since his discharge he has been employed at Northrop Grumman for 17 years, is married, with four children, and has no criminal record. We also find insufficient...
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). Accordingly, applicant's request is denied.
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Regrettably, she did not file for Military Personnel Appropriations (MPA) Man-day Tour orders prior to performing the duty, nor prior to the mid-Dec 00 deadline for MPA man-day reconciliation. _________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD: A majority of the panel finds insufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommends the application be 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 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. PATRICIA D. VESTAL Panel Chair Exhibits: A.
He further states he received a rating of “three” on his last EPR because he was not within the weight standards. The EPR closing Jun 00 indicates he continued to struggle to meet Air Force weight standards, which negatively affected his overall promotion potential and showed his failure to meet the standards over a prolonged period of time. Further, they state that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence or evaluator support to warrant upgrading the report.
The provision also stated that within the month of April 2001, any PIRR member could elect to withdraw or reduce their coverage without being charged $20 per month for the maximum coverage of $250,000. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim...