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 available relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the applicant's military records (Exhibit B) and in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force (Exhibit C). _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Military Personnel Management Specialist, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, reviewed the appeal and provides his rationale for recommending that the applicant’s discharge be upgraded to general, but not honorable. ...
Should the board void the report entirely, or upgrade his EPR closing 31 Aug 99, the applicant will be entitled to supplemental promotion consideration for cycle 00E7 promotion cycle to master sergeant. A complete copy of the advisory is attached at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 10 August 2001, for review and response within...
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.
Counsel’s request with the AFBCMR response is at Exhibit F. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: By letter dated 15 June 2001, counsel advised that the applicant was ready to proceed and submitted additional materials for consideration. On 13 July 2001, counsel was notified by the AFBCMR that an additional advisory opinion was required prior to presenting the case to the Board for a decision (Exhibit H). By letter...
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.
AFBCMR 00-02828 INDEX NUMBER: 128.05 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). 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.
He be commissioned a second lieutenant in the Air Force and placed in the Reserve. Counsel’s response was received after the 30-day timeframe and after the applicant’s case had been considered by the Board (Exhibit F). ___________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 15 March 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair Mr. Steven A. Shaw, Member Mr....
___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Field Operations Branch, AFPC/DPSFM, indicated the applicant stated he did not elect to sell any leave upon his reenlistment on 18 Oct 99 but lost the leave after payment was erroneously made for 37 days leave. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-02833 INDEX CODE: 110.00, 112.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her reason for separation and her Separation Program designation (SPD) code be changed from JFX (Personality Disorder) to MBK (Completion of Required Service). A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. 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, 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.
AFBCMR 00-02836 INDEX NUMBER: 113.04 MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION BEFORE THE AFBCMR SUBJECT: XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, 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 facts and opinions stated in the advisory opinion appear to be based on the evidence of record and have not been rebutted by applicant or counsel. Available Master Personnel Records C. Advisory Opinion D. SAF/MIBR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinion
Although the applicant stated that he had applied for reassignment in November 1998, he could have participated with his unit of assignment until his effective date of transfer on 26 February 1999. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that he was awarded 4 non- paid inactive duty training (IDT) points for...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-02845 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Applicant is the ex-spouse of a former service member, who requests corrective action that would entitle him to a Reserve Component Survivor Benefit Plan (RCSBP) annuity. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD...
On 15 September 1999, DFAS received the applicant’s request to establish SBP coverage for his new wife. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that he should be allowed to terminate SBP coverage for his wife. Therefore, we 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...
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit D). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit E). AFBCMR (Processing) RALPH J. PRETE EXAMINER AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS DATE:________________________ MEMBERS PRESENT: , Panel Chair , Member , Member TYPE OF MEETING:...
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. Robert W. Zook, Mr. Robert S. Boyd, and Mr. Edward C. Koenig, III, considered this application on 23 January 2001. Panel Chair Attachment: Ltr, AFPC/DPPTR, dtd 15 Nov 00 AFBCMR 00-02858 INDEX CODE: 110.00 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-02861 INDEX CODE: 107.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded the Purple Heart (PH) medal. A crew member bandaged his arms and he completed the mission with no other ill effects. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The...
Since filing his appeal, he has been promoted to the grade of SRA with a DOR of 15 Feb 01. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this appeal are contained in the applicant’s military records (Exhibit B), and the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force (Exhibits C, D and E). TEDDY L. HOUSTON Panel Chair AFBCMR 00-02866 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records and...
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 facts and opinions stated in the advisory opinions appear to be based on the evidence of record and have not been rebutted by applicant.
AFBCMR 00-02868 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code and AFI 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. He was awarded 35 non-paid inactive duty training...
At the time he received informal verification that he would be TDY through the end of the fiscal year, he attempted to take leave so that he would not lose any days. As of this date, this office has received no response (Exhibit C). After reviewing the documentation submitted, we are convinced that the applicant had pre-planned his entire leave year to avoid losing any leave and would not have lost any leave if his commanding officer had not denied his verbal leave request...
INDEX CODE AFBCMR 00-02871 MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION BEFORE THE AFBCMR SUBJECT: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 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 appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's application and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending his request for the PH be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). After careful consideration of the applicant's submission and the available evidence of record, we find insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant awarding the PH.
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). The Board staff is directed to inform applicant of this decision.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-02119 INDEX CODE: 107.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded the Purple Heart (PH) medal (first oak leaf cluster) for being a Prisoner of War (POW) in Germany from 16 Feb 45 to 29 Apr 45. Therefore, DPPPR recommended the applicant’s request for award of the PH be denied. As of this...
Members of the Board Mr. Terry A. Yonkers, Mr. George Franklin, and Mr. Roger E. Willmeth, considered this application on 1 March 2001. Panel Chair Attachment: Ltr, AFPC/DPPTR, dtd 4 Jan 01 AFBCMR 00-02881 INDEX CODE: 110.00 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 Board for Correction of Military...
[According to a 23 Oct 00 letter to the applicant from the Executive Director of HQ AFPC (Exhibit A), the Personnel Data System (PDS) had an ASD of 1 Dec 98 when the applicant submitted his 2 Mar 99 retirement application to the Holloman AFB military personnel flight (MPF). Their letter indicated that the date requested for a second retirement extension would result in his having received an approved retirement for 14 months from the date of the original application under 7-Day Option...
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, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, Enlisted Promotion and Military Testing Branch, AFPC/DPPPWB, also reviewed this application and states that the first time the report was considered in the promotion process was cycle 99E8 to senior master sergeant (promotions effective April 1999 - March 2000). A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit...
AFBCMR 00-02890 INDEX NUMBER: 121.00, 121.03 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...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-02892 INDEX CODE: 110.00 APPLICANT COUNSEL: None SSN HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her reason for separation and the reenlistment code (RE) be changed on the DD Form 214 to allow her to return to military service. The medical consultant recommends that the applicant’s reason for separation be changed to...
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). 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). 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.
After careful consideration of applicant's request and the limited documentation which was available, 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. Teddy L. Houston, Mr. Grover L. Dunn, and Ms. Marilyn Thomas considered this application on 10 Jan 01 in accordance with the provisions of Air Force Instruction 36-2603 and the governing statute, 10 U.S.C.
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 Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Mr. Timothy Beyland, and Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr., considered this application on 3 April 2001. Panel Chair Attachment: Ltr, AFPC/DPSFM, dtd 21 Feb 01 AFBCMR 00-02904 INDEX CODE: 121.03 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF...
The case of Cooper v. Secretary of the Air Force involves a class of U.S. Air Force veterans whose discharges from the Air Force were based, at least in part, on faulty positive drug urinalysis tests conducted from Apr 82 through Nov 83. The Settlement Agreement specifically states that it “does not reflect any statement or admission concerning the merits of this action and is evidence merely of its terms.” The class certified by the Court consists of all U.S. Air Force veterans who were...
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.
They noted that under military disability laws and policy, USAF disability boards can only rate those medical conditions which make the member unfit for continued military service at the time of evaluation. The DVA had the same records to evaluate as the Air Force, but found him entitled to a 30% rating for migraine headaches and a 50% rating for panic disorder. The findings of the PEB must be reversed and the applicant be provided with a rating consistent with his conditions upon leaving...
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant's military records, are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force. 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 and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the...
Counsel’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. Exhibit E. Minority Report. While the applicant’s actions may have supported punishment by Article 15, I am not persuaded that the severity of the punishment, reduction in grade from CMSgt to SMSgt, is warranted.
Given the fact that this document was issued within a relatively short period of time following his separation, we must conclude that responsible officials had access to the applicant’s military records and determined that the applicant had been awarded the GCM. No documentary evidence has been presented to indicate that a recommendation for award of the DFC was officially submitted. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent...
After receiving a copy of his “as met” records for the CY00A board, he discovered that no citation for the JSCM was present in his OSR. The JSCM citation still has not been filed in his OSR as of the date of his applications. TERRY A. YONKERS Panel Chair AFBCMR 00-02918 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...
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.