AFBCMR 00-02924 INDEX NUMBER: 128.00 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. Members of the Board, Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, and Mr. Frederick R. Beaman III, considered...
Applicant’s records reflect that he was awarded the National Defense Service Medal, Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal, Vietnam Service Medal (with two Bronze Service Stars (BSS)), Air Force Good Conduct Medal, the Small Arms Expert Marksmanship Ribbon and the Air Force Outstanding Unit Award (with one oak leaf cluster). The Purple Heart medal is awarded to personnel for wounds received as a direct result of enemy action and must have received medical treatment by medical personnel. ...
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 his counsel for review and response (Exhibit D). Accordingly, applicant's request is denied.
Additional guidelines state that military members discharged from the service for a physical disability, which existed prior to service and not aggravated by active duty service, are not entitled to receive disability retirement or severance pay. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit E. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 16 February...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-02931 INDEX CODE: 128.10 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be granted relief from having to reimburse the government for the cost of his education incurred under the Armed Forces Health Professions Scholarship Program (AFHPSP). The account was transferred from the Air Force to DFAS on 3 Mar...
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 B). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit C). Members of the Board, Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr., and Mr. Philip Sheuerman, considered this application on 7 Feb 01, 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). 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 00-02942 INDEX CODE: 137.00 MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION BEFORE THE AFBCMR SUBJECT: APPLICANT, SSN 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...
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.
He filed for reimbursement of lodging expenses and received a total of only $2,857.00 or $124.00 a day. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that actual temporary lodging allowance (TLA) was authorized by compentent authority for the period of 1 July 2000 through 24 July 2000, and he be reimbursed for expenses incurred while in...
The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 11 May 1998 through 2 February 1999 be upgraded from a rating of “4” to a rating of “5” and the closeout date of the report changed to 11 November 1998. The start date for the Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 3 February 1999 through 24 December 1999, be changed to 12 November 1998. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section,...
AFBCMR 00-02955 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 the...
On 18 July 2000, she was informed that AFPC/DPAAD2 approved her request to withdraw the PCS declination statement and that she would not be able to test out of cycle because her package was not submitted in time. The applicant states that she turned down an assignment but was approved to stay in and believes she would have been approved before the cut off date for testing if her package had not been lost and resubmitted. After the commander disapproved her package, the FSO received the...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-02959 INDEX CODE: 131.05 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The date of his entry on active duty be corrected to read 16 January 1999 rather than 19 January 1999, so that the break in service from 16-18 January 1999, will be eliminated. He should have been discharged from enlisted status 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.
On 5 Jul 84, he was found guilty by his commander who imposed the following punishment: Reduction from the grade of sergeant to the grade of airman first class, forfeiture of $50 a month for two months, and 30 days correctional custody but the execution of the portion of the punishment which provided for reduction to the grade of airman first class was suspended until 5 Jan 85. The reasons for the commander’s action were the incidents of misconduct for which he received the Article 15...
Members of the Board, Mr. David C. Van Gasbeck, Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, and Mr. Mike Novel, considered this application on 16 May 2001. Panel Chair Attachment: Ltr, ARPC/DPB, dtd 20 Apr 01, w/atchs AFBCMR 00-02962 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...
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 29 Dec 00 for review and response within 30 days. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that competent authority deferred until 1 January 2003, the...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-02965 INDEX CODE: 110.00, 100.03 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 2C be changed to allow eligibility to reenter the Air Force. He requests additional information be provided concerning his discharge. A complete copy of this response is appended...
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 on 6 April 2001, 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 00-02968 Index Number 131.04 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...
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.
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Personnel Program Management, HQ AFPC/DPPAE, stated that the applicant was advised that a review of his initial enlistment documents identified his HOR as Ladson, SC, and that subsequent enlistment documents erroneously reflected Long Island, NY (his place of birth). After a thorough review of the applicant’s military records, DPPAE found no documentation to substantiate changing the applicant’s HOR...
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be returned to applicant without action until such time as he submits the proper documentation to establish former spouse coverage as he was advised to do in 28 December 2000. 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...
c. In reference to the applicant’s third allegation, he does not specify any particular error that was made. Therefore, they recommend that no change be made to applicant’s military records. Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation 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 applicant also contends the duty title of “EC-130H Instructor/Flight CC” (effective 2 November 1999) should also have been included on his CY00A OSB, since he completed his check ride on that same date. Furthermore, there is no evidence the applicant ensured the duty title had been updated prior to the board. RICHARD A. PETERSON Panel Chair AFBCMR 00-02978 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of...
The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. _______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant did not provide comments on the evaluation by AFPC/DPPRS, but did comment on his FBI report. The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit F. The applicant provided a second response detailing his efforts to get the information in his FBI report corrected. Therefore, we recommend the applicant’s records be corrected as...
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 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.
Members of the Board Mr. Terry A. Yonkers, Ms. Carolyn J. Watkins, and Mr. John E. Pettit considered this application on 14 March 2001. Panel Chair Attachment: Ltr, JPPSO-SAT/CC, dtd 19 Feb 01, with attachment AFBCMR 00-02993 INDEX CODE: 128.14 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...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Reserve of the Air Force Selection Board Secretariat, HQ ARPC/DPB, reviewed this application and recommended denial of the applicant’s request. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant indicated that he did not return the postcard to meet the continuation board...
AFBCMR 00-02998 INDEX CODE: 110.00 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...
AFBCMR 00-02999 INDEX CODE: 137.00 MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION BEFORE THE AFBCMR SUBJECT: APPLICANT, SSN 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...
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.
We note that the applicant’s DD Form 214 has been administratively corrected to reflect a separation date of 31 May 00, award of the Air Medal, and the KC-10A Instructor Qualification Course, March 1999, added under Military Education. The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's requests and provided an advisory opinion to the Board (Exhibit C). After careful consideration of applicant's request and the available evidence of record, we find insufficient evidence of error...
However, if the decision is to grant the relief sought, applicant’s record should be corrected to reflect an RE code of 3K, “Reserved for use by HQ AFPC or the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR) when no other reenlistment eligibility code applies or is appropriate.” A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 19 January 2001 a...
He gave a history of ingestion of a bottle of aspirin to avoid going to school, and a history of inpatient mental ward hospitalization and treatment with anti-psychotic mediations. The fact that his mother had an affair when his father was away on business with an individual that abused him right before his parents separated had a vast impact on his childhood. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that 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.
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 8 Jan 01 AFBCMR 00-03007 INDEX CODE: 112.07 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF...
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 opinions appear to be based on the evidence of record and have not been adequately 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.
AFBCMR 00-03012 INDEX NUMBER: 128.01 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 00-03013 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 of Staff signed by...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-03014 INDEX CODE: 110.00,112.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His discharge date, Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code, and his narrative reason for discharge be changed. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Personnel Policy Staff...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-03018 INDEX CODE: 111.02, 134.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: An expired Unfavorable Information File (UIF), with a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) be removed from her records; the line in Section V (Rater’s Comments) of her Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), closing 23 Apr 99, which made the...
They indicate the applicant was released from active duty and transferred to the USAFR effective 1 October 1995, prior to the effective date of his promotion. The applicant was considered by the earliest possible promotion board. At the time of his transfer to the USAF Reserve, he did not meet the eligibility requirement for promotion to lieutenant colonel under the provisions of the Reserve Officer Promotion Act (ROPA).
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 counsel for review and response (Exhibit D). Counsel'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.