Applicant’s DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, reflects that he was discharged on 4 June 1980, under the provisions of AFM 39-12, by reason of Request for Discharge for the Good of the Service, with a UOTHC discharge. Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Clarksburg, WV, provided an investigative report which is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 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). 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 (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 (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.
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.
If the suspension date of 18 April 2000 is changed to a date before the PECD of 31 March 2000, the Board could also direct supplemental promotion consideration for cycle 00E5. The applicant has not related any new or additional information, not available at, or near, the time when he received the action, which indicate circumstances warranting a set aside. VAUGHN E. SCHLUNZ Panel Chair AFBCMR 00-02566 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the recommendation of...
Applicant was considered, but not selected for promotion to the grade of colonel by the CY00A colonel’s board. Several of the applicant’s attachments stated that “AFSC is an assignment related course not PME, per se.” The applicant acknowledged that although AFSC was not displayed on his OSB, there was a training report filed in his officer selection record (OSR) verifying his successful completion of AFSC. Removal of JPME II from the OSBs alleviated the perception among joint officers...
A copy of the complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant provided a copy of his CY00A OSR and now asserts that his OPR closing 31 May 00 should have been included in his OSR for the promotion board’s consideration. Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit F. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: The Chief, Military Justice Division, AFLSA/JAJM, reviewed the application and states that the Article 15 was based on the applicant’s conduct with two different female airmen. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D. The Retirement Programs and Policy Section, AFPC/DPPRRP, reviewed the application and states that the applicant was correctly retired in the grade of senior master sergeant,...
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.
The appropriate Air Force office, AFPC/JA, 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 Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records has limited authority to take action in this matter.
As of this date, no response has been received by this office. Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPRRS, dated 6 Oct 00. Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 27 Oct 00 BARBARA WESTGATE Vice Chair AFBCMR 00-02589 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 authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that: The pertinent military records of the...
In accordance with the Air Force 7-day option policy, the applicant was required to retire effective 1 Oct 00. On 28 Mar 00, he requested an exception to the 7-day option policy through his squadron commander requesting a 1 Mar 01 retirement date. There is no provision for the applicant to request an extension of his approved retirement date for the sole purpose of obtaining over 22 years active service.
Other facts surrounding his discharge from the Air Force are unknown inasmuch as the complete discharge correspondence is not available. They also stated that the applicant did not provide evidence of error in his discharge case and that since the discharge occurred over 20 years ago, and considering the misconduct that led to his UOTHC discharge, they recommend clemency. Although the applicant did not specifically request consideration based on clemency, we also find insufficient evidence...
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 Board staff is directed to inform applicant of this decision.
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 granted (Exhibit B). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit C). In this respect, while the facts and opinions stated in the advisory opinion from the SBP office of primary responsibility (OPR) appear to be based on the evidence of record and recommend the application be approved, we note that the legal...
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant responded to the Air Force evaluation, by letter dated 26 January 2001. In addition, the evidence provided indicates that he has overcome the behavioral traits which led to his discharge and has become a productive member of society. RICHARD A. PETERSON Panel Chair AFBCMR 00-02598 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having...
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). Available Master Personnel Records C. Advisory Opinion D. SAF/MIBR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinion
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). 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 base legal office file no longer exists and JAJM was unable to determine what evidence was provided to the commander to substantiate the offense. The applicant provided no compelling reason for the Board to favorably consider her request for immediate return to active duty (see Exhibit F). ___________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of probable...
In support of his request applicant provided copies of his DD Forms 2367, DD Form 2789, Waiver/Remission of Indebtedness Application, and the Remission Decision. He had an established date of separation (DOS) and a date for his expiration of term of service (ETS) of 22 November 2000. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 17 Nov 00.
On 14 Apr 00, the investigating officer documented his findings during the report of survey identifying the applicant as being grossly negligent in his actions. The additional rater stated that the applicant did receive a copy of the EPR and referral memorandum. Therefore, in the absence of evidence that the contested report was an inaccurate depiction of the applicant’s performance at the time it was rendered, we adopt AFPC/DPPPE’s rationale and conclude that no basis exists 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). Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. Members of the Board Mr. Robert W. Zook, Mr. Robert S. Boyd and Mr. Edward C. Koenig, III, considered this application on 24 April 2001, in accordance with the provisions of Air Force Instruction 36-2603 and the governing statute, 10 U.S.C.
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 (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.
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.
The letter of reprimand (LOR) he received dated 5 Oct 98 be voided and removed from his records. The LOR he received dated 3 Dec 98 be voided and removed from his records. If the Board either removes or upgrades the referral EPR, removes the Promotion Withhold Letter, removes the LORs dated 5 Oct 98 and 3 Dec 98, it could reinstate the applicant’s promotion to MSgt.
AFBCMR 00-02641 INDEX NUMBER: 128.02 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. Members of the Board, Mr. David C. Van Gasbeck, Mr. Christopher Carey and Mr. Dale O. Jackson,...
IAW the Joint Federal Travel Regulation, Vol 1, par U5705B, “…a member is not entitled to TLE due to a move when entering active duty (except for enlisted members reporting to their first PDS).” The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. The Traffic Management Division, AFPC/DPAMP, evaluated the applicant’s request for remission of the debt for the unauthorized airline ticket. The Board does not agree with the recommendation made by AF/DPRCC to deny the applicant reimbursement for TLE. ...
If there had been a properly updated selection record showing him as a graduate of in-residence SSS, that record would have had sufficient time to be scored or re-scored by the board. Applicant's Officer Selection Brief (OSB) did not reflect his completion of Senior Service School (SSS) at the time he was considered for promotion by the CY00A selection board. Therefore, we recommend his corrected record be considered by Special Selection Board for the CY00A board.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-02644 INDEX CODE: 110.00, 100.03 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of “2C” be changed to “3A” to allow eligibility to enlist in the Air Force Reserves. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Separations...
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 applicant’s response is attached 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 00-02646 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, Mr. Christopher Carey and Mr. Dale O. Jackson considered this application...
ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-02649 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: In the applicant’s request for reconsideration, he requests that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable or general (under honorable conditions). A complete copy of the Record of Proceedings is attached at Exhibit...
A statement written by a treating physician points to the onset of this disorder while the applicant was on active duty although her service medical records show no evidence of any such disorder during her service time. A complete copy of the Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 6 Apr 01 for review and...
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). 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: 00-02656 INDEX CODES: 108.00, 137.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Applicant is the widow of a former member of the Air National Guard who requests that the former service member’s records be reviewed for consideration for disability retirement in accordance with Title 10, Section 653,...
AFBCMR 00-02662 INDEX CODE: 107.00 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...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-02666 INDEX CODE: 128.09 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: She be reimbursed $534.00 for the cost of self-procuring an airline ticket purchased from a Non-Contracted Travel Office in connection with PCS travel. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE...
Even though the duty history entries are administratively incorrect, they do not believe they had an adverse affect on the applicant’s promotion opportunity, as the correct data was available for the board’s review in his evaluation reports and as evidenced by his selection by the CY95A board. A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 3 Nov...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-02670 INDEX CODE: A06.00 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: Not Indicated ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His entry-level separation be changed to an honorable discharge and the reason for his separation (Fraudulent Entry) be changed. The Medical Consultant indicates that if the applicant had disclosed to authorities his past...
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinions were forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). Members of the Board Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Ms. Mary C. Johnson, and Mr. Thomas J. Topolski Jr. considered this application on 9 May 2001, in accordance with the provisions of Air Force Instruction 36-2603 and the governing statute, 10 U.S.C.
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, 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.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-02681 INDEX CODE: 107.00,111.03 APPLICANT COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Officer Performance Report (OPR) for the period ending 30 May 1997 be removed from his records, the Air Force Achievement Medal (AFAM) awarded for the period 20 Oct 95 to 1 Jul 98 be upgraded to a Meritorious...
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.