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 00-02148 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...
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 00-02162 INDEX NUMBER: 110.02 MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION BEFORE THE AFBCMR SUBJECT: XXXXXXXXXXX, 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...
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 reasonably available at the time the application was filed.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-02169 INDEX CODE: 128.14 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to reflect that he was credited with three (3) sorties and 13.8 hours of flight time in the Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) of 1A111C (Flight Engineer), the AFSC he held at time of the flights, for the period 17...
The applicant states that his MPF changed his reenlistment contract to reflect the increase in the SRB multiple and the Air Force should honor the contract. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Skills Management Branch, AFPC/DPPAE, reviewed the application and states that after further research concerning the reason for the change in the reenlistment document, the MPF advised that applicant’s contract was correct at the time of...
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's requests and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending denial of applicant’s request for the Presidential Unit Citation (Exhibit C). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). Regarding applicant’s request for award of the Presidential Unit Citation, after reviewing the documentation submitted, the Board is convinced he was assigned to Detachment 15 at the time the Presidential...
Members of the Board Mr. Patrick R. Wheeler, Mr. Roger E. Willmeth, and Mr. John E. Pettit considered this application on 8 February 2001. Letter, Applicant, dated 15 Dec 00. AFBCMR 00-02183 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, and it...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-02184 INDEX CODE: 131.09, 131.10 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His P0598B promotion recommendation form (PRF) be corrected to reflect "Definitely Promote" and his records with the new PRF be considered by a special selection board (SSB) for promotion to lieutenant colonel. In support of...
The complete submission is at Exhibit F. The applicant also provided a letter from his brother affirming that the applicant was in Saudi Arabia during the timeframe that he claims. The applicant’s brother states that he was deployed to Saudi Arabia twice during the period the applicant claims to have been in Saudi Arabia and that they were both billeted at Eskan Village outside Riyadh. They also noted that while the existing records did not clearly indicate that the applicant served in...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-02196 INDEX CODE: 112.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: N0 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Military Personnel Management Specialist, Separations Branch, AFPC/DPPRS, reviewed this application and states...
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 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 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...
On 25 Jan 99, applicant was notified of his commander’s intent to impose nonjudicial punishment upon him for disobeying a lawful order on 17 Dec 98 and 17 Jan 99, and for being drunk and disorderly on 17 Jan 99. The commander further stated that before recommending the discharge, the applicant received numerous administrative counselings for his continued failure to perform his assigned duties. He was sent to Mental Health counseling, anger management counseling, and alcohol counseling.
He remained on the TDRL until 4 Feb 88, at which time he was permanently retired with a 50 percent disability rating. On the second examination, the PEB diagnosed him with Agoraphobia with panic attacks, with a severe industrial impairment and recommended that he be permanently retired with a 50 percent disability rating. 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 military disability...
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: 00-02209 INDEX CODES: 111.02, 131.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) prepared for consideration by the Calendar Year 1997E (CY97E) Lieutenant Colonel Board (PO597E), which convened on 8 Dec 97, be voided and replaced with a reaccomplished PRF. There was...
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 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.
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: At the time of his retirement, the Air Force should have diagnosed him with diverticulitis. The applicant has not provided any evidence that he was unfit due to a physical disability at the time of his voluntary retirement. Under military disability laws and policy, USAF disability boards can only rate medical conditions based upon the member’s situation at the time of his or her evaluation.
The Board noted that, as a result of the IG substantiating 11 of the 15 allegations, the applicant was relieved of her command, received the contested LOR/UIF and referral OPR. Although the Board majority is recommending the cited referral OPR be removed from applicant’s records, the Board believes that the applicant’s reassignment should be accomplished through Air Force assignment processing. JOE G. LINEBERGER Director Air Force Review Boards Agency September 25, 2001 MEMORANDUM FOR 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). 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 available at the time the application was filed.
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.
According to HQ ARPC/DPP, he has 43 points for R/R Mar 99-Mar 00; 50 points are needed for a satisfactory year. The applicant did complete the F/Y 99 requirement of 12 active duty (AD) points and 48 IDT by participating for 10 points during Sep 99; however, these points were actually the first points earned for his 8 Mar-7 Mar 00 R/R year. Before his R/R date was ever changed, he had completed all training day and active duty requirements, based on the information he had at the time, by Feb 99.
A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 5 October 2000, for review and response within 30 days (Exhibit E). At the time he applied for retirement in May 1999, to be effective 1 June 2000, his medical condition had not yet been diagnosed. In view of the above, we recommend that the...
In order to establish eligibility for Reserve retired pay under the provisions of Title 10, United States Code, Section 12731, a member must complete 20 years of satisfactory service with the last 6 years of qualifying service in a Reserve component. Although he completed sufficient points for his full R/R year ending 11 September 2000, to be satisfactory, he died prior to completion of the 20th year. On the date of his death, the deceased member had sufficient points for a year of...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-02258 INDEX CODE: 128.10 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be reinstated as a cadet in the United States Air Force Academy (USAFA) and his records be corrected to reflect a period of probation for the time of his absence; or, in the alternative, appropriate changes be made to his record 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). Accordingly, applicant's request is denied.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-02265 INDEX NUMBER: 133.00 XXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: None XXX-XX-XXXX HEARING DESIRED: No _______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The decision that he retire in the grade of major resulting from the officer grade determination (OGD) done by the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) be reconsidered. In addition, he put...
___________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Based on the DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge, the applicant is a former member who was discharged with an undesirable discharge on 27 September 1957, under the provisions of AFR 39-17 (Unfitness). ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF FBI REPORT: A copy of the FBI report was forwarded to the applicant on 14...
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. 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). 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.
INDEX CODE: 137.04 AFBCMR 00-02282 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...
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 4 August 1998, the vacation of the suspended reduction was set aside, and she was returned to the grade of A1C with a date of rank and effective date of 30 December 1997. Therefore, we agree with opinions and recommendations 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 BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-02286 COUNSEL: MAJ THOMAS L. FARMER HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He receive a direct promotion to master sergeant with an effective date of promotion and a date of rank as a promotee in the SDI 8J000, Correctional Custody career field for 1998 or 1999. The applicant believes that two of the...
DPSAMP forwarded a letter to the applicant requesting a copy of his birth certificate, however, as of this date the applicant has not provided the required verification. Therefore, we recommend his records as indicated below. Exhibit B.
In accordance with policy, the application was forwarded to this Board for further consideration (Exhibit C). The decision of the AFDRB 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.
Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided an investigative report which is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Separations Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, reviewed the application and states the applicant was court-martialed because he pled guilty in a civil court and was sentenced to one-year civil confinement for assault with intent to rob. They further...
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Special Actions/BCMR Advisories, AFPC/DPPD, also reviewed this application and indicated that records show that the applicant was treated for various medical conditions throughout his military career, none of which were severe enough to warrant that he be presented before a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) or Physical Evaluation Board (PEB). Under military disability laws and policy, United States Air Force...
The applicant requested the Board reconsider the correction to his PRF and supplemental consideration for promotion to lieutenant colonel (Exhibit B). ___________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air force relating to the applicant be corrected to show that the AF Form 709, Promotion Recommendation Form, prepared for consideration by the P0599B Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board,...
Copies of the EPRs are provided at Exhibit B. The ERAB indicated the applicant was found guilty of disturbing the peace and fined by a civilian court system after pleading no contest and no inappropriate comments were found on the report. The EPR states the applicant improved his conduct “after off-duty civil criminal conviction of ‘disturbing the peace.’” The applicant did plead nolo contendre in civilian court on 2 Aug 99 to a charge of disturbing the peace, which did, in fact, result in...
Nothing in the records or that is provided by the applicant indicates an error was committed or injustice served in the type of discharge received. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Military Personnel Management Specialist, AFPC/DPPRS, reviewed this application and concurs with the BCMR Medical Consultant’s recommendation that the applicant’s narrative reason for separation and separation code should remain the same. ...
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.
These documents are appended at Exhibit A. There is no indication in the applicant’s records that he was recommended for an AFAM for his tour in Korea, and he has not provided any documentation to substantiate his claim. While we note the Air Force Achievement Medal (AFAM) citation provided in support of the applicant’s appeal, no documentary evidence has been presented substantiating to our satisfaction that the recommendation for the requested award was officially placed in military...
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided the 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.
________________________________________________________________ _ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that she was discharged in the grade of Airman First Class (E-3) on her DD Form 214 with a date of rank of 22 December 1998 and effective date of 11 May 1999, rather than in the grade of Airman (E-2). Exhibit B. PATRICK R. WHEELER Panel Chair AFBCMR 00-02345 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-02350 INDEX CODE: 107.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded the Purple Heart (PH) medal for injuries sustained during action in December 1950 in support of the Korean War. He asks that the Board review the aircraft accident investigation report and to also check to see if the...
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...