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). Applicant's response to the advisory opinion 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.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-01800 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLSA/JAJM states that the record of trial indicates another airman provided a...
___________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 27 January 1961. On 6 May 1998 the applicant was notified of his new counsel and the new board date. DPZ referred to the JAJ review of the case for support of their position on the matter and recommended denial of the applicant’s request (Exhibit D).
Members of the Board Mr. Frederick R. Beaman III, Mr. E. David Hoard, and Mr. Roscoe Hinton Jr. considered this application on 29 August 2001. FREDERICK R. BEAMAN III Panel Chair Attachment: Ltr, HQ USAF/ILTT, undated with attachment AFBCMR 01-01806 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...
AFBCMR 01-01810 INDEX NUMBER: 128.14 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...
AFBCMR 01-01814 INDEX CODE: 100.00 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 for...
______________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit B. ______________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPW reviewed this application and recommended denial. ______________________________________________________________ THE BOARD...
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). Applicant's response to the advisory opinion 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.
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.
AFBCMR 01-01819 INDEX NUMBER: 110.02 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, 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 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, 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.
On 2 June 2000, the applicant was notified he was selected for continuation on the Reserve Active Status List. On 18 Sep 00, the applicant signed an AF Form 131, Application for Transfer to the Retired Reserve, requesting a retirement effective date of 30 Apr 01. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. _______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant responded to the Air Force evaluation and reiterated 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 B). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (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.
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.
Members of the Board Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, Mr. Grover L. Dunn, and Mr. Albert J. Starnes considered this application on July 23, 2002. Ltr, AFPC/DPPTR, dtd July 3, 2002, W/Atch 2. Ltr, AFBCMR, dtd Jun 5, 2002, w/Atchs AFBCMR 01-01827 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...
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.
On 2 Nov 00, applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force as an E-3, and was given a DOR equal to her date of enlistment (DOE). AFI 36-2604, Service Dates and Dates of Rank, is the governing directive for computing dates of ranks. 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 office of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-01835 INDEX NUMBER: 131.00; 111.01 XXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: None XXX-XX-XXXX HEARING DESIRED: Yes _______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The closeout dates and respective signatures on his officer performance reports (OPRs) closing out 12 Jul 96, 12 Jul 97, and 12 Jul 98 be corrected to reflect closeout dates of 31 May 96, 31 May 97, and...
AFBCMR 01-01838 INDEX NUMBER: 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...
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied. The HQ AFPC/DPW evaluation, with attachment, is at 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.
However, it is noted that it is the responsibility of the retiring service member to elect the best coverage for his family; and that the spouse has the right to concur or nonconcur in the service member's decision in electing SBP. DPPTR, based on the evidence provided, recommends the request be denied. While we can sympathize with the applicant’s loss of her son and the resulting anguish she was suffering at the time she completed the SBP notification and concurrence form, AF Form 1267,...
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.
AFPC/DPSFO noted that the applicant graduated UPT in Nov 95 and incurred an eight-year ADSC in accordance with Air Force Instruction 36-2107, Active Duty Service Commitments (ADSC) and Specified Period of Time Contracts (SPTC), Table 1.4, Rule 6, dated 6 Jul 94. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSFO evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In her response, the applicant indicated that the original...
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. Accordingly, applicant's request is denied.
Had he not been reassigned he would have completed a total of 35 combat missions and met the requirement for award of a DFC (i.e., completion of 35 combat missions). After a thorough review of the applicant’s submission and the supporting documentation he provided, we are not persuaded that his record should be corrected to reflect completion of 28 combat missions or that he be awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC). After a thorough review of his submission and the supporting...
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (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. 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...
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.
He was medically cleared on 7 Aug 00 and enlisted in the RegAF on 5 Sep 00 in the grade of SSgt (E-5) with a DOR of 5 Sep 00. The applicant’s enlistment was processed in a timely manner and his DOR correctly established to equal his 5 Sep 00 enlistment date. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis...
The information he received was incorrect; therefore, he was charged 8 days of excess leave (24-31 Oct 00). The remaining 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 at Exhibits C and D. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPSFM recommends the application be approved. The DFAS- POCC/DE evaluation,...
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: ARPC/DPA recommends the application be denied. The ARPC/DPA evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR...
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 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, 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 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 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.
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPPR states there is no evidence in the applicant's record to substantiate that the injury he received was a direct result of enemy action. Based on the information provided, DPPPR recommends denying the applicant's request. We noted the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of his case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force and adopt their...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-01869 INDEX CODE 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO Applicant requests that his 15 May 1969 under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to honorable. The advisory opinion and FBI Report were forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit E). Applicant's response to the advisory opinion is at Exhibit F. After careful consideration 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). 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 Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied the applicant's request for upgrade of her discharge. The Board majority believes that the evidence of record supports the decision of the Air Force Discharge Review Board. Exhibit D. Minority Report PATRICK R. WHEELER Panel Chair AFBCMR 01-01871 MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR) SUBJECT:...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-01873 INDEX CODE: 110.00 (DECEASED) COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO __________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her late husband’s undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. Nevertheless, noting that the former servicemember suffered the adverse effects of his undesirable discharge for almost 37 years before his death in 1984 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). 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's DD Form 149, w/atchs B.
The commanders were inappropriately advised to disregard the policy of considering lengthy service probation even if the misconduct was drug abuse. To the contrary, given the fact that the applicant wrongfully used marijuana a second time while awaiting action on his retirement request and his impending discharge, it would appear the decision was appropriate. _________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD: A majority of the Board finds...
The evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPAE states that they find no documentation to support the Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of 2P, “Absent without leave (AWOL); deserter or dropped from rolls (DFR).” However, based on documentation and member’s narrative reason for separation “marginal performer” they recommend the applicant’s code be changed to 2C “Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service” which they feel...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-01882 INDEX CODE: 111.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 25 Mar 99 through 24 Mar 00 be declared void and removed from her records. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 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, 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.
Applicant signed his AFROTC scholarship contract on 9 September 1987. He was commissioned as an Air Force officer through AFROTC which resulted in a four year ADSC. The ADSCs were calculated correctly and implemented upon completion of his Anesthesiology training program on 30 June 1994.
INDEX CODE: 112.03 AFBCMR 00-01886 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...
AFBCMR 01-01888 INDEX NUMBER: 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...