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 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). 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.
Exhibit B. Exhibit I. Exhibit J.
INDEX CODE: 121.03 AFBCMR 01-02232 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...
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.
_________________________________________________________________ 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. Based on the evidence provided they recommend denying the applicant's request. The applicant states the stress management program offered by Behavioral Services was not advertised when he was in SUPT.
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the official documents provided in the applicant’s submission (Exhibit A) and in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force (Exhibits B and E) and the Defense Finance Accounting Service (DFAS) (Exhibit F.) _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPSFM indicates...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-02901 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The duty title for the Officer Preselection Brief and the Promotion Recommendation Form reviewed by the Calendar Year 1998A (CY98A) Central Colonel Selection Board should be changed to “Dental Residency Flight Commander,” and he be given promotion...
________________________________________________________________ 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. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: 01-02264 INDEX CODE 100.06 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed from “2C” (Involuntarily separated with an entry level separation without characterization of service) to “1B” [sic – There is no “1B” RE code. A complete copy of the evaluation is at...
INDEX CODE: 110.00 AFBCMR 01-02265 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 19 Jun 01, the applicant was notified that his commander was recommending that he be discharged from the Air Force for fraudulent entry. On 28 Jun 01, the applicant was separated from the Air Force under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, (Fraudulent Entry into Military Service), with an uncharacterized entry level separation, an RE code of 2C (Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or, entry level separation without characterization of...
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.
Applicant did not provide any official documentation stating he was unjustly relieved of his command at Altus AFB, OK. It is a well-known fact that a commander leaving a command position is decorated for his work, unless he is relieved for cause during his command. Regarding the issue that he did not submit a substantiated IG complaint concerning his removal from command, he indicates that this appeal is a request to correct a wrong.
On 26 Mar 81, the SecAF Personnel Council considered his case and determined that extraordinary heroism was not involved in the circumstances described in the citation awarding him the AM. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that the...
DPPPO states that the applicant sent a letter to the CY00A central major board containing an explanation and support for his contention that his TR for the period 1 July 1999 through 31 December 1999 was not filed correctly. While we note that the applicant requests removal of the referral TR in its entirety, we are in agreement with the recommendation of the Air Force office, AFPC/DPPP, that the TR should be replaced with the reaccomplished TR and do so recommend. Therefore, the Board...
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 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.
The applicant also states that the report should have a closeout date of 1 October 2000, the actual date of his departure. However, the request to change the period of the report from 19 October 1999 through 1 September 2000 to 19 October 1999 through 1 October 2000, which is the date of his separation from active duty, is denied. BARBARA A. WESTGATE Chair AFBCMR 01-02304 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-02310 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded the Purple Heart (PH). At the time of his separation, he was asked if he had any medical problems then, not whether he had ever been wounded. The PH is awarded for wounds received as a direct result of enemy action (i.e., gunshot or...
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on 1 Mar 02 for review and response. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice; that the...
His former Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) of 3P051 be reinstated. However, if the Board recommends the applicant’s rank of E-4 be restored, they recommend changing his RE code to 3K (i.e., Reserved for use by HQ AFPC or the AFBCMR when no other reenlistment eligibility code applies or is appropriate). Evidence has not been presented which would lead us to believe that the nonjudicial punishment, initiated on 22 July 1999 and imposed on 30 July 1999, was improper.
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 AFPC/DPPPA evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: Complete copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 2 November 2001, for review and response. Since the report was not timely filed in his records through no fault of the applicant, we recommend that he applicant be considered for promotion to the grade of colonel by SSB for the CY01A board. ...
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.
Members who failed to complete a new SGLV 8286 during the month of April 01 to elect a lower amount of coverage or “no coverage” were automatically covered for $250,000 in accordance with this provision (Exhibit B). A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit B. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered this application AFBCMR Docket Number 01-02344 in Executive Session on 24 July 2002, under the provisions of AFI...
The applicant’s request under AFI 36-2401 to have the contested EPR removed from his records was denied by the Evaluation Reports Appeals Board (ERAB). The AFPC/DPPPWB evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPPEP recommends the application be denied. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that the contested report is an inaccurate assessment of his performance during the contested rating period.
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.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-02377 INDEX CODE: 107.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded the Purple Heart (PH) and the Bronze Star (BS). The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. At the time of his separation, he had completed a total of 4 years and 9 months of service, which...
___________________________________________________________________ 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 C. ___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPSAMP reviewed this application and recommended denial. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: 01-02382 INDEX CODE 126.04 126.02 COUNSEL: Angela P. Rose HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Article 15 imposed on her on 17 Jan 01 be removed from her records and her grade of senior airman (SRA) be reinstated. On 8 Jan 01, the applicant was notified of her section commander's intent to impose nonjudicial...
AFBCMR 01-02383 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,...
He had 3 months and 2 days of Foreign Service 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: AFPC/DPPPR recommend disapproval of the applicant’s request for the award of the Vietnam Service Medal. ...
_________________________________________________________________ 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. The applicant has not submitted any documentation to show that he was unfit due to a physicial disability at the time of his voluntary separation. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be...
Based on the evidence provided DPPPO recommends denying the applicant's request to be reconsidered for promotion to colonel (Exhibit D). However, it appears that the organization from which she has received this current certification is not recognized by the Air Force as an accredited board or agency and her records should not reflect board certification. As a result, the selection board was apparently advised that she was not board certified; however, it cannot be determined...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPP states that the applicant requests he be granted an SSB because he was denied the opportunity to compete for selection due to an egregious mistake of fact on the part of his senior rater when preparing his PRF for the board. A complete copy of this evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...
In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a personal statement, a letter from his commander, dated 21 August 2001, Promotion Recommendation Forms (PRFs), for the CY99A and CY99B Board, Officer Selection Brief, prepared 16 November 1999, Officer Performance Reports (OPRs), closing 4 March 1998 and 4 March 1999, the citation to accompany the award of the Meritorious Service Medal (MSM), and other documentation. The Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPB indicates that the...
AFBCMR 01-02409 INDEX NUMBER: 128.00 MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION BEFORE THE AFBCMR SUBJECT: XXXXXXXXXXXX, 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...
On 11 June 1985, the discharge authority approved the request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial and directed the applicant be issued a UOTHC discharge. They concurred with the conclusions of the AFDRB that applicant’s discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation, and further that the discharge action was within the discretion of the discharge authority. Exhibit C. FBI Report of Investigation Exhibit D. Letter, HQ...
The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s available limited military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force. Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Washington, D.C., provided an investigative report which is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPRS states based upon the lack of...
Members of the Board, Mr. Henry Romo, Jr., Mr. Clyde L. Williams, and Ms. Anne-Cecile McDermott considered this application on 15 November 2001. HENRY ROMO, JR. Panel Chair Attachment: Ltr, HQ ARPC/DPP, dated 8 Nov 01. AFBCMR 01-02422 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...
A Commander-Directed Mental Health Evaluation Letter, dated 8 Mar 01, indicated that the applicant was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder with mixed disturbance of emotions and conduct as manifested by a series of ineffective work performance/habits and conflictual relationships with work peers and her chain of command. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit E). The evidence of record indicates that the applicant was diagnosed with adjustment...
After reviewing the evidence provided, some doubt exists as to whether the contested entry on the applicant’s separation document is correct. Exhibit B. BARBARA A. WESTGATE Chair AFBCMR 01-02429 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that: The pertinent military records of the Department...
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.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. AFI 36-2504, Officer Promotion, Continuation, and Selective Early Removal in the Reserve of the Air Force, paragraph 2.7.2.2 states: “The position must be authorized at a higher grade than the nominee’s current grade.” A further requirement is for the applicant’s nomination package to arrive at HQ ARPC/DPBA 45 days prior to the convening of the selection board (AFI 36-2406). MILMOD, or previously the Personnel Data System...
In a letter dated 12 Jan 02, the applicant's wife requested an extension of time in which to respond. A copy of his response, with attachment, is at Exhibit G. Then in a letter dated 30 Jan 02, the applicant requested that his case be temporarily 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...
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. Joseph G. Diamond, Mr. Jackson A. Hauslein, Jr., and Mr. Edward H. Parker considered this application on 1 April 2002, in accordance with the provisions of Air Force Instruction 36-2603 and the governing statute, 10, U.S.C.
AFBCMR 01-02460 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...
In support of his request applicant provided his marriage license and letters associated with his request to enroll his spouse in the SBP program. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPTR recommends the applicant’s request be denied. In this respect, the law governing the SBP provides that a member who is unmarried at the time of his retirement may elect coverage for a newly acquired spouse.
They indicate that to be awarded the Purple Heart (PH) a member must provide documentation to support he was wounded as a direct result of enemy action and must have received medical treatment by medical personnel. The evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the evaluation and states that his back injury was due to a fall down the stairs during a rocket attack in Vietnam....