The service member can file an election change or the former spouse can request that the change be made on their behalf. DPPTR on 19 Apr 01, requested that the service member provide documents that are required to establish former spouse coverage--copy of his final divorce decree and a properly completed DD Form 2656-1, Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) Election Statement for Former Spouse Coverage. Should these completed documents be submitted, the Board would be willing to reconsider this case.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-01097 INDEX CODE 131.03 107.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to show that he was promoted to the grade of technical sergeant (E-6) and that he be given additional campaign participation credit. Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, 1 Jun 01. PATRICK R. WHEELER Panel...
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.
AF Form 988 (Leave Request/Authorization) provided by the applicant reflects that on 7 Mar 01, he requested 30 days of leave from 19 Mar 01 to 19 Apr 01, with a DOS of 19 Apr 01. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Noncommissioned Officer-In-Charge (NCOIC), Separation Procedures Section, AFPC/DPPRS, reviewed this application and indicated that although the applicant states his DOS should have been 19 Apr 01, the separation documents in...
For an accounting of the rationale of the earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings at Exhibit F. On 28 Nov 01, the applicant’s physician submitted a request for reconsideration, contending that the applicant was unable to make a rational choice regarding the SBP declination. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of probable...
Applicant was discharged on 5 July 1973, in the grade of airman with an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge, under the provisions AFM 39-12 (for the good of the service). After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record, we are not persuaded that the applicant has been the victim of either an error or an injustice. Therefore, based on the evidence of record, we cannot conclude that clemency is warranted.
_______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Counsel for the applicant responds to the Air Force advisories in a letter with six attachments which includes two letters of support, Evidence and Exhibits, Facts, Findings, & Relief Requests, a complete and expanded rebuttal and an Executive Summary. The Advisory states: We recommend the AFBCMR deny the applicant’s request for direct promotion, to reconvene the MLR is moot, and...
The applicant is requesting removal of any reference to physical or sexual abuse of his children from his medical or military records. As no direct reference was made in these notes to physical or sexual abuse of children and as no disposition was evident, AFMOA/SGZF supports removal of those notes from the military medical record. The applicant requests that any reference to the physical or sexual abuse of his children be removed from his medical or military records.
The applicant submitted an appeal to the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR) on 23 April 2001. Additionally, we note the published articles regarding the mortar attack on Phang Rang AB and the statement from a nurse who also advised the applicant to seek medical attention for his injury. FREDERICK R. BEAMAN Panel Chair AFBCMR 01-01193 INDEX CODE: 107.00 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for...
The BCMR Medical Consultant states that the applicant was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder, and not the personality disorder that appears on the DD Form 214 an error that needs to be corrected. The BCMR Medical Consultant further states that the current AFI regulating separations for mental health problems does not allow coding for other than “personality disorder,” an entirely different code sequence from that with which the applicant was diagnosed. However, after reviewing all the...
AFBCMR 01-01240 INDEX CODE: 131.09 MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION BEFORE THE AFBCMR SUBJECT: Having carefully reviewed this application, we agree with the recommendation of the Special Review Board and adopt that recommendation 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...
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.
On 9 August 1999, the applicant was awarded the AFCM, 2 OLC, for the period 10 September 1998 to 7 September 1999. The applicant was considered and nonselected for promotion to the grade of major by the CY00B Central Major Selection Board that convened on 18 September 2000. On 2 April 2001, the applicant was awarded the AFCM, 3 OLC, for the period 22 August 1996 to 9 September 1998.
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.
In support of the appeal, applicant submits his personal statement and a copy of a certificate/citation to accompany the award of the AFAM, 1 OLC. 56th Mission Support Squadron special order GB-0408, dated 8 July 1993, awarded the applicant the AFAM, 1 OLC, for meritorious service during the period 5 April 1989 to 31 October 1993. The applicant has not provided sufficient justification for his delay in clearing up the many discrepancies regarding the AFAM, 1 OLC for the October to December...
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 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.
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief Medical Consultant, AFBCMR, states that it is unusual after so many years of service that a service member's reason for discharge is Personality Disorder. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 15 Nov 01, for review and response. Therefore, the Board...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-01365 INDEX CODE: 134.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: a. In support of his appeal, the applicant provided documents regarding his daughter's military career. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the...
The BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit G. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In the applicant’s response to the additional Air Force evaluation, she posed several questions that arose from her review of the evaluation. We considered the applicant’s request for an upgrade of her discharge to honorable and her request to receive service-related disability; however, we are not persuaded by the...
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.
Just prior to signing his contract, he was informed by the MEPS personnel that he would lose a grade to staff sergeant and the only way he could retain the rank of technical sergeant was to pursue action through the Board for Corrections of Military Records. ___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Enlisted Accessions and Enlistment Branch, AFPC/DPPAEQ, indicated that at the time of his enlistment, the applicant had accumulated 9...
He is currently serving in the grade of technical sergeant with a date of rank of 1 January 2002. After again reviewing this application and the evidence provided in support of his appeal, we remain unpersuaded that the applicant’s should be reinstated to the rank of technical sergeant at the time of his enlistment into the Regular Air Force. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session...
The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. AFPC/DPPP in their evaluation prepared for the applicant’s second application recommends denial of the applicant’s request to substitute his PRF with a revised PRF. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice regarding the applicant’s requests to substitute the OPRs closing out 2 Jun 99 and 2 Jun 00 with revised reports, to substitute the PRF rendered on him reviewed by the CY00A...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-01463 INDEX CODE: 108.00 COUNSEL: JOHN E. HOWELL HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to reflect award of the Vietnam Service Medal (VSM) (Vietnam), rather than VSM (Thailand). A DD Form 215, dated 16 Jul 01, reflects that the applicant was awarded the VSM (Thailand). The...
In addition, the OPR makes reference to a LOR in direct violation of AFI 36- 2907. By referring to the LOR in the OPR, the rater has taken a localized temporary document and made it a permanent part of his official military record. The DPB evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant responded and states that during his 16 Nov 99 performance feedback session, his rater gave no indication...
The applicant's requested effective dates were considered; however, since the orders submitted by his former classmate provide a key piece of concrete evidence substantiating some of his claims, we believe we should be guided by these documents. 37, the classmate was awarded flight status effective 9 May 56. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be...
It was determined that applicant’s wife did not require a non-medical attendant and the applicant’s supervisor notified the applicant that he was not authorized to travel on the orders already cut but would be required to take leave. While applicant contends he did not know he was not authorized to use the orders, he did request leave in order to travel. The AFLSA/JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C. HQ AFPC/DPPPE recommends the applicant’s request for removal of the referral OPR from his...
He be restored to the rank of technical sergeant (TSgt) as of the date of Article 15 or, in the alternative, as of the date relief is granted by the Board. The commander that imposed the Article 15 examined and considered a prior Article 15 he received and failed to provide him a copy and all other evidence he considered in deciding whether to impose nonjudicial punishment. We note the strong support the applicant has from his present commander to set aside the Article 15; however, we do...
His AFSC of K1A171C was withdrawn because he was medically disqualified from performing flying duties. As such, he was medically disqualified from the AFSC and it was withdrawn. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that the application will only...
After he presented his evidence before the commander, it was determined that he was not guilty of the Article 93 violations but his commander found him guilty of the Article 134 violations. The specific reasons for his action was that he had received an Article 15 in May 2001, and in July his suspended reduction was vacated for violations of Articles 128 and 134 of the UCMJ; he had not completed all the requirements for upgrade to his 5 skill level as a Paralegal; and that his misconduct...
On 19 May 97, an MEB found the applicant not world-wide qualified and recommended she be referred to an Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB). He diagnosed her as having a personality disorder, not otherwise specified, and recommended administrative separation. On 9 Nov 98, the IPEB found her fit with an adjustment disorder which existed prior to service (EPTS) at the USAFA and recommended she be returned to duty.
Both trainee and military training instructor (MTI) accounts indicate that by the third water stop, AB S-- and other trainees were receiving assistance from fellow trainees at various times during the march. Further, it is not designed for BMT trainees, cannot be used to make a determination regarding trainee activities, and does not contain sufficient objective criteria to assess an event like the march. d. The 10 Sep 98 march followed the limited guidance then existing for the conduct of...
The HQ AFPC/DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on 14 December 2001 for review and response. In addition, we noted DPPD’s assertion that, as a result of an informal review of the applicant’s records by the IPEB, it was their opinion that since his disability was not considered permanent and his temporary medical condition...
The two staff sergeants, whose reductions in rank were approved, obtained their rank of staff sergeant by virtue of cheating for which they were punished. After considering the integrity offense the applicant committed, it is consistent that the members concluded he was not fit to be a noncommissioned officer and sentenced him to be reduced to the grade of E-4, senior airman. AFLSA/JAJM complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. In addressing the promotion and testing issues,...
He suggested that she submit to a pregnancy test to determine if she was pregnant before the date she came to his room. The counsel's complete statement is at Exhibit H. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the...
The 15 days active duty were added to the active duty time performed in the U.S. Air Force for a total of 25 years, 5 months, and 6 days. Members do not receive day-for-day active duty credit for computing TAFMSD AFI 36-2604, Service Dates and Dates of Rank, Table 3. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered this application on 14 February 2002 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Mr. Roger E. Willmeth, Panel Chair Ms....
The advisory opinions were forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit C). Applicant's response to the advisory opinions is at 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. Members of the Board Mr. Joseph G. Diamond, Mr. Jackson A. Hauslein, and Mr. Edward H. Parker considered this application on 1 April 02 , in accordance with the...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPPR recommends the application be denied. There is no indication the applicant served in Indochina, and there are no awards or decorations associated with service in Indochina during the period he was on active duty. Exhibit D. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 8 Nov 01 Exhibit E. Letters, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Nov 01 and 20 Dec 01.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-01667 INDEX NUMBER: 135.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. Based on the evidence of record and that verified by HQ Air Reserve Personnel Center (HQ ARPC), the applicant was given credit for all of his mandays performed during the retirement year ending (RYE) 8 Jul 00. ...
Specifically, the board noted that (1) implementation of the original monitoring and evaluation may have obviated the need for a privilege action, (2) the lack of documentation to support that an opportunity for remediation through monitoring and evaluation by a peer was given full consideration, and (3) there was insufficient time to provide such supervision because the applicant was separating from the Air Force. After reviewing the deliberations and recommendations of the Air Force...
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 (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.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-01728 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His bad conduct discharge be upgraded. On 7 October 1952, the applicant received a bad conduct discharge under the provisions of AFR 39-18. After carefully considering the applicant’s submission and the available evidence of record, we...
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.
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D. ANG/DPFP indicates that neither the military personnel flight (MPF) nor the state headquarters was able to provide documentation substantiating the applicant's claim for the AFAM. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant withdrew his requests for the AFGCM and the AFAM, and acknowledges the administrative...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: 01-01765 INDEX CODE 131.10 102.03 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: Not Indicated _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be afforded a special records review regarding his promotability to the grade of lieutenant colonel (LTC) on the Aug 67 promotion cycle and he be promoted retroactively to LTC, or at least to LTC in the Retired...
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 5 October 2001, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days. While we are not certain as to why the applicant did not participate during the period January 1986 to October 1986, we note that had he requested to be transferred to the Retired Reserve in December...
INDEX CODE 112.07 AFBCMR 01-01794 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...
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 01-01797 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...