RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-01987 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His uncharacterized entry-level separation be upgraded to an honorable discharge. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letters prepared by the...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Separations Procedures Branch, AFPC/DPPRS, states that based upon the lack of documentation in the file, DPPRS is of the opinion the discharge was consistent with procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation. The member did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing nor did he provide any facts warranting an...
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.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-01991 INDEX CODE 100.06 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The narrative reasons for his separation be changed and his Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be upgraded to allow his entry into the United States Army. He was issued an RE code of “2B.” On 4 November 1996, the Air Force Discharge...
On 27 August 1992, the Air Force Discharge Review Board considered the applicant’s request for discharge upgrade and change of reason for discharge and denied his requests (Exhibit E). By letter dated 1 October 2001, it was requested that the applicant provide evidence pertaining to his post-service activities (Exhibit G). After a thorough review of the evidence of record we see no evidence to show that the applicant’s discharge was erroneous or unjust.
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: It took him approximately 7 years to be promoted from the grade of first lieutenant to the grade of captain and 7½ years to be promoted from the grade of major to the grade of lieutenant colonel. As for the delay in his promotion to lieutenant colonel, the applicant has not provided any evidence to show there was an error or an injustice done. Additionally, there was no requirement to show the report...
The Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of 2C, “Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service” is correct. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 31 August 2001, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant for review and response within thirty (30) days. ...
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.
In support of the appeal, applicant submits his personal statements and extracts from his military personnel records regarding his separation from the Army Air Corps on 16 October 1945 and his permanent physical disability retirement from the Air Force on 23 December 1960. The applicant served on active duty in the Army Air Force during the period 30 September 1946 through 13 October 1949, to include service in support of the Berlin Airlift. We took notice of the applicant’s complete...
f. Vacation of nonjudicial punishment, dated 9 Jul 81, for failure to go to guardmount at the time prescribed. The complete report is at Exhibit F. _______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT”S RESPONSE TO FBI REPORT: A copy of the FBI report was forwarded to the applicant on 23 Oct 01 for review and comment within 30 days. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 14 Sep 01.
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 applicant applied to the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR) in Jul 00 to upgrade his discharge to honorable. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Directorate of Personnel Program Management, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied on the basis that regardless of the fact the AFBCMR upgraded his discharge, he was still...
AFBCMR 01-02006 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...
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The applicant makes no contentions on his application; however, he provided letters of support from the rater and additional rater of the report in question. Should the Board replace the report as requested (with the upgrade of the overall rating of “5”), providing he is otherwise eligible, the applicant will be entitled to supplemental promotion consideration beginning with cycle 01E5. A complete...
Applicant's submission is at Exhibit A 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). 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 his appeal, the applicant submitted a revised PRF as well as a copy of a letter sent to his Management Level Review president by his Senior Rater requesting that the revised PRF be substituted for the original PRF and the applicant meet an SSB. ____________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that the Promotion Recommendation...
AFBCMR 01-02015 INDEX NUMBER: 131.06 MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION BEFORE THE AFBCMR SUBJECT: XXXXXXXXXXX, 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...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-02031 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded. The Board also invited the applicant provide additional evidence pertaining to his post-service activities. In a letter, dated 15 April 2002, the applicant states that he has no excuse for the way he acted...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-02032 INDEX CODE: 107.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded the Presidential Unit Citation (PUC). We note that, to date, the applicant has not provided documentation to substantiate that he was apart of the 357th Infantry, 90th Division. Should the applicant provide this...
A second payment was received from a collection agency in the amount of $874.64 and was credited on 14 May 2001. The applicant separated from the Air Force before serving the required amount of time to be entitled to the bonus. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that at the time of his discharge on 22 June 2000, he was...
Therefore, they recommend the Board approve applicant’s request and authorize reimbursement of all overcharged premiums effective 1 July 2001 and disapprove reimbursement of all charged premiums from 1 April 2001 through 30 June 2001. A copy of the Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit G. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 5 April 2002 for review and...
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied. The HQ AFPC/DPW evaluation 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.
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: HQ AFPC/DPPTR recommends the application be denied. At that time, spouse coverage was suspended and premiums deducted after the divorce were refunded to the member. DPPTR indicated that the law in...
The applicant, while serving in the grade of airman, was discharged from the Air Force on 1 June 2001 under provisions of AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen (pregnancy or childbirth), with an honorable discharge. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS states that they believe the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation at that time. A complete copy of the...
The applicant was honorably discharged in the grade of airman first class on 15 Feb 00 for Personality Disorder. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPAE advised that the applicant received a $4000.00 IEB. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that recoupment action of the IEB should be stopped.
The Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant states there is absolutely no evidence to prove that the double- curve thoracic scoliosis, dislocated and fractured thoracic vertebra, and lumbar scoliosis with tilted vertebra were there prior to service. None of his Air Force physicals indicated any EPTS spinal conditions. Applicant provided another statement in which...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-02097 INDEX CODE: 110.03 APPLICANT COUNSEL: AMERICAN LEGION HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Reenlistment (RE) Code of “2Q” be changed to allow her to return to military service. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant's military records, are contained...
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.
_________________________________________________________________ DFAS EVALUATION: DFAS-POCC/DE reviewed the appeal and provided their rationale for recommending denial. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF DFAS EVALUATION: The applicant provided a response, contending that DFAS’ assertion that discharge ends any contractual relationship with the government regarding pay and entitlements is...
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.
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: AFPC/DPW recommends the application be denied due to a lack of sufficient evidence to support the claim. 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 applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. ...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-02138 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His entry level discharge be changed to an honorable discharge with medical conditions. The BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied. DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit...
AFBCMR 01-02140 INDEX NUMBER: 100.01 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, the applicant’s records should be corrected as set forth in the accompanying Memorandum for the Chief of Staff. Members of the Board,...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-02152 INDEX CODE 108.01 100.06 COUNSEL: Tom Affeldt HEARING DESIRED: Yes _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His 1987 administrative discharge be changed to a medical discharge and the narrative reason for discharge and separation program designator (SPD) and reenlistment eligibility (RE) codes be changed accordingly. Medical...
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.
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The reasons the applicant believes the records to be in error or unjust and the evidence submitted in support of the appeal are at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPW reviewed this application and recommended denial. 3.Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.
On 19 September 2001, based on an application submitted by the applicant under AFI 36-2603, his record was administratively corrected to show that, on 1 August 2000, he was not discharged but was released from active duty and transferred to the Air Force Reserve. It would appear that as a result of the action taken to administratively correct the applicant’s records to show he was released from active duty and transferred to the Air Force Reserve, rather than discharged, his status as a...
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 01-02181 INDEX NUMBER: 100.00 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, the applicant’s records should be corrected as set forth in the accompanying Memorandum for the Chief of Staff. Members of the Board,...
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The reasons the applicant believes the records to be in error or unjust and the evidence submitted in support of the appeal are at Exhibit A. 3.Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 1 Oct 01.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: 01-02186 INDEX CODE 108.01 108.03 108.07 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records reflect he was medically retired for tonsil and prostate cancer and that the prostate cancer was in the line of duty (LOD) as a result of armed conflict and/or instrumentality of war. The remaining relevant...
Therefore, she should have been medically retired. Individuals who are pending retirement at the time they are referred for a physical disability evaluation enter the disability evaluation system under a rebuttal presumption that they are physically fit. The DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit D. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force Evaluations were forwarded to the applicant for review and response.
AFBCMR 01-02194 INDEX CODE: 131.05 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...
For his 9 Oct 92 duty entry, "A" is correct and there should be a subsequent entry effective 31 Oct 93 to reflect a change from "A" to "C" (see Exhibit C) AFPC/DPPP recommends denial of the applicant's request. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that the Duty Air Force Specialty Code, effective 6 October 1992, be changed to...
On 9 April 1999, an IPEB convened and based on the diagnosis of asthma, mild, persistent, recommended the applicant be discharged with severance pay, with a 10% disability rating. The BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPD recommends the applicant be allowed to apply for active duty through an Air Force Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS), where he can be reexamined within military channels to determine if he can meet current medical standards for active...
The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. _______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant’s counsel responded to the Air Force evaluation and indicates that he and the applicant believe that the documents presented by the applicant establish that a clear injustice occurred when the applicant received an Article 15 for allegedly being derelict in the performance of his duties. Counsel’s complete response is at Exhibit...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPAOR reviewed the applicant’s request and states that upon entry to active duty, applicant’s DIEUS date was established in accordance with AFI 36-2604, Service Dates and Dates of Rank, Table 1, Rule 13, giving the applicant a DIEUS of 21 July 1986, IAW his DD Form 4, dated 21 July 1986 (Exhibit C). _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...
The Air Force should honor its agreement with him by providing five annual Reserve payments upon his retirement after 20 years. Neither HQ AFRC/DPM nor his MPF ever notified him of any change to his RTAP eligibility and allowed him to retire with the understanding that he was eligible for RTAP benefits. We do not believe the applicant should be penalized for an administrative error, and recommend his records reflect that he was, in fact, eligible for and entitled to RSSP under the...