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 or his designee. Members of the Board Mr. Gregory H. Petkoff, Mr. George Franklin, and Mr. Albert F. Lowas Jr. considered this application on 26 September 2001. GREGORY H. PETKOFF Panel Chair Attachment: Ltr, HQ AFPC/DPW, dtd 7 Sep 01, with attachment AFBCMR 01-01721 INDEX CODE:...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPPWB states that the first time the contested report was considered in the promotion process was cycle 00E6 to TSgt (promotion effective 1 Aug 00 - 1 Jul 00). The commander determines the rating chain, therefore, the ERAB requested a memorandum from the commander stating the from and through dates of Lt M___’s supervision. We note the applicant has not provided statements from any of...
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. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Mrs. Melinda Loftin, and Mr. Dale O. Jackson, considered this application on 8 August 2001. Panel Chair Attachments: Memorandum, HQ ARPC/DPB, 18 Jul 01 AFBCMR 01-01726 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Under the...
___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Due to administrative injustices and the close out date of his Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), his Air Force Medical Service Award that was awarded to him by the Air Force Surgeon General on 23 Dec 99, will not be seen by the promotion board until two years after the date was awarded. Since his last promotion, the applicant has received 4 Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs) in which the...
A Report of Separation and Record of Service, reflects he was discharged from the Air National Guard and Reserve of the Air Force, effective 12 November 1981, by reason of “Expiration Term of Service,” and issued a general discharge. After careful consideration of the applicant’s request, we found insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice. Applicant should also be informed that this decision is final and will only be...
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.
On 10 Apr 01, the applicant’s squadron commander notified him that he was recommending his discharge from the Air Force for a mental disorder. Based on documentation in the applicant’s file and the narrative reason for his separation, “Personality Disorder” they recommend that the applicant’s RE code be changed to 2C, “Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service.” The complete evaluation is at Exhibit...
The service member and G. (the applicant) were married on 14 Sep 94; however, the service member did not notify DFAS of the change in his martial status nor did he request to establish coverage for his new spouse. On 21 Feb 01, the service member's former spouse (M.) submitted a request for correction of his military records to entitle her to an SBP annuity. The beneficiary form that the applicant refers to was to entitle her to the service member's unpaid retired pay, not as a beneficiary...
AFBCMR 01-01744 INDEX NUMBER: 137.04 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...
AFBCMR 01-01745 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. Therefore, under the authority delegated in AFI 36- 2603, the applicant's records will be corrected as set forth in...
On 19 February 1954, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-17 (Unfitness), with an undesirable discharge. We note that the applicant provided some character references pertaining to his post-service activities; however, the Board does not believe this evidence is sufficient to warrant clemency. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 5 December 2001, under...
The Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) returned the application without action because the member did not provide the required documentation to support his contentions. Although the applicant states he provided his rater with key information for his EPR and he alleges that significant accomplishments were not in his evaluation report, the rater determines the content of the evaluation report. A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Separations Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPRS reviewed this application and recommended the discharge be upgraded to an under honorable conditions (general) discharge if a check of the FBI files proves negative. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-01753 INDEX NUMBER: 110.03 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO Applicant requests that his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) be corrected to reflect his discharge date as April 1967. A copy of the applicant’s Report of Separation, obtained from the Dept of Veterans Affairs, reflects that the applicant entered active duty on 19 December 1966...
The appropriate Air Force office 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. The Board staff is directed to inform applicant of this decision.
Members of the Board Mr. Frederick R. Beaman III, Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr., and Mr. E. David Hoard, considered this application on 29 August 2001. FREDERICK R. BEAMAN III Panel Chair Attachment: Ltr, AFPC/DPPTR, dtd 27 Jul 01 AFBCMR 01-01762 INDEX CODE: 137.00 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...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-01766 INDEX NUMBER: 111.01 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: None XXX-XX-XXXX HEARING DESIRED: No _______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered on him for the period 21 Jun 98 through 20 Jun 99 be removed from his records and that a Letter of Evaluation (LOE), AF Form 77, Supplemental Evaluation...
They therefore, recommended that the applicant’s records be corrected to show he was promoted to the grade of first lieutenant effective upon his release from active duty (Exhibit C). The applicant correctly notes that the governing regulation was amended on 9 December 1944 to authorize the submission of a recommendation for promotion to first lieutenant of any second lieutenant who had completed 18 months of service in the grade, provided the individual was qualified for, and worthy of,...
On 7 May 54, he received an undesirable discharge from the Air Force. By letter dated 27 August 2001, it was requested that the applicant provide evidence pertaining to his post-service activities (Exhibit G). 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.
AFBCMR 01-01772 INDEX NUMBER: 100.00 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 the...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO: 01-01773 INDEX CODE 107.00 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No Applicant requests his DD Form 214 reflect his participation in Operation Urgent Fury (Grenada) and receipt of the appropriate award. 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...
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 adequately rebutted by applicant.
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. _________________________________________________________________ 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 opinions 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.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 10-01784 INDEX CODE: 107.00 APPLICANT COUNSEL: None SSN HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to reflect he was awarded the Purple Heart (PH). A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO. Accordingly, applicant's request is denied. Members of the Board, Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Mr. William H. Anderson, and Mr. Lawrence R. Leehy, considered this application on 11 Dec 01, in accordance with the provisions of Air Force Instruction 36-2603 and the governing statute, 10 U.S.C.
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 Chief, Inquires/AFBCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPWB, stated that the first time the contested report closing 1 Oct 99 was considered in the promotion process was cycle 00E6 to technical sergeant (promotions effective Aug 00 - Jul 01). A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Performance Evaluation Section, AFPC/DPPPEP, indicated that neither the IG nor the Social...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-01790 INDEX CODE: 107.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO Applicant requests that his DD Form 214 be corrected to reflect he was awarded an Air Force Commendation Medal. The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's requests and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant...
AFBCMR 01-02012 INDEX NUMBER: 137.03 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...
AFBCMR 01-02019 MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION BEFORE THE AFBCMR SUBJECT: XXXXXXX SSAN: 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 of...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied. The evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Counsel’s response to the evaluation is attached at Exhibit F. On 5 October 2001, the Board staff requested the applicant provide post- service documentation within thirty (30) days. 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 (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: 01-02024 INDEX CODE: A79.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Clarksburg, WV, provided an investigative report which is attached at Exhibit C. The remaining...
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.
On 4 Dec 90, the applicant was notified that her commander was recommending that she be discharged from the Air Force for parenthood. On 27 Nov 90, she received a Letter of Admonishment reprimanding her for failing to provide the squadron with Dependent Care Certification, as was her duty to provide by 19 Nov 90. A complete copy of their letter is attached at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of...
INDEX CODE: 135.02 AFBCMR 01-02038 MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION BEFORE THE AFBCMR SUBJECT: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 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...
INDEX CODE: 135.02 AFBCMR 01-02039 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...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-02040 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The 16th AF Intel Officer of the Year 1990 award comments contained in his 19 Jun 92 Training Report (TR) be removed and added to his 4 Mar 91 Officer Performance Report (OPR), and he receive Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration for promotion to the...
In this respect, we note that the applicant was promoted to the grade of major with those entries in his records. We find no evidence that he ever took action to correct his duty history after his first nonselection for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the CY99B (30 Nov 99) Lt Col Board. Thus, his duty history contained those same entries when he was considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the CY00A (28 Nov 00) Lt Col Board.
The applicant’s initial USUHS contract would govern any ADSC associated with educational programs regardless of the time he actually enters training. DPAME also noted that current and past regulatory guidance is that obligation for civilian sponsorship is always served consecutively to any pre-existing ADSC. Actually, the regulation he was provided did indicate a consecutive obligation for civilian sponsored training, although his ADSC is governed by the language in his contract.
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 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 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). 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 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.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-02052 INDEX CODE: 128.14 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be reimbursed for overpayment of Servicemember’s Group Life Insurance (SGLI) premiums he paid for the period of 1 April 2001 through 1 June 2001. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE...
AFBCMR 01-02053 INDEX NUMBER: 131.10 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 RSFPP election form provided by the applicant reflects he elected spouse and child coverage with Option 4. However, if the Board recommends granting the request, the decedent’s record should be corrected to show RSFPP spouse and child coverage based on one-half of his retired pay was established effective 1 June 1970. We therefore agree with the recommendation of the Air Force and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that her late husband’s intent not to extend...