ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-00415 INDEX CODE: 110.00 APPLICANT COUNSEL: NO SSN HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: In the applicant's request for reconsideration, he requests his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to honorable. Applicant’s request for an honorable discharge was considered but...
We note that with the exception of the information regarding the change to the Navy’s training policy, all of the evidence provided by the applicant was available during our initial consideration of his request for reinstatement to pilot training. While it has been confirmed that the applicant would not have been eliminated from advance training in the Air Force for the error made in the Navy’s program and might possibly have not been eliminated from the Navy’s program under the Navy’s new...
INDEX CODE: 108.03 AFBCMR 00-01568 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...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: 00-01657 INDEX CODE 107.00 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: Not Indicated _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records reflect that he served in the 44th Fighter Bomber Squadron at Clark AFB during the Korean War and that he was on temporary duty (TDY) to Japan (Johnson AFB) and Formosa for a period of 90-plus days. ...
ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-01810 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: In the applicant’s request for reconsideration, he requests additional credit for his foreign service and that he be awarded the following decorations: Air Force Outstanding Unit Award with Combat “V” Device, the Vietnam Service and Campaign...
_________________________________________________________________ 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: AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or...
In view of the ADB’s finding that he did not communicate a threat to a coworker and should be returned to a participating status, we believe corrective action in regard to his request for point credit from 1997 to 2002 is appropriate. Until such time as the ADB determined that he had not communicated a threat to a coworker, there existed no basis for the commander to determine that he should be returned to a participating status, especially considering the racial incident one year earlier...
The separation agreement (incorporated into the divorce decree) ordered the former member to elect former spouse coverage at the earliest time possible, but the applicant failed to submit a deemed election request within the required time limit. A summary of the evidence considered and the rationale of the earlier decision by the Board is set forth in the Record of Proceedings at Exhibit E. The applicant’s 12 October 2001 request for reconsideration of her application was denied by the...
The recordings were also used in nonjudicial punishment proceedings against SSgt F----. Applicant submitted an appeal to his Article 15 punishment. Regarding the Air Force position that even without the use of the tapes and disregarding the adultery allegation, the remaining allegations were sufficient to support nonjudicial punishment, the applicant states that in a sworn affidavit for federal court his commander stated that if it hadn't been for the tapes she would not have known about...
Had he been properly briefed and his commander not wrongfully threatened disciplinary action and misrepresented information regarding his continued eligibility to serve in the Reserve, he would not have separated but instead remained on active duty until he was eligible to retire for length of service. The evidence of record fails to show that any error or injustice occurred in his separation processing that would support his current request for retirement consideration. When enlisted...
On 25 April 1987, the applicant enlisted in the Air Force Reserve for a period of six years. The Air Force has indicated that the applicant has received incapacitation pay for the period 2 Nov 96 through 1 May 97. She has completed a total of 17 years, and 5 days of satisfactory Federal service as of her Retirement Year Ending (RYE) 22 July 2002.
On 22 July 1999, the applicant’s commander imposed nonjudicial punishment on the applicant, who was then serving in the grade of technical sergeant, for making a false official statement. The BCMR Medical Consultant is of the opinion that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the applicant's medical condition was a direct and substantial causative factor for the behavior that lead to his nonjudicial punishment. The BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFLSA/JAJM...
Based on travel documents provided by the applicant (Exhibit A), he departed Holloman AFB, NM on 20 September 2000 and arrived in Cincinnati OH on personal leave on the same date. 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: USAF/ILT recommends the...
He was unable to exhaust his leave prior to his date of retirement. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRP recommends the application be approved. In view of the above, we recommend that the applicant be afforded relief by correcting his record as indicated below.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00647 INDEX CODE: 100.03 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her separation code be changed. The BCMR Medical Consultant states that the applicant was administratively separated due to an adjustment disorder with mixed disturbance of emotions and conduct, and traits of a personality disorder. On...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00655 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The narrative reason for his separation be changed from Personality Disorder to Hardship Discharge and his Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) Code be changed. Although action and disposition in this case are proper and equitable...
On 26 Oct 84, the Board considered and denied the applicant’s request to have is reenlistment eligibility (RE) code changed. He enlisted in the Air Force Reserve for six years on 30 Jun 95 and his Expiration Term of Service (ETS) was 29 Jun 01. The applicant has requested that he be given an age waiver for commissioning as an officer.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00722 INDEX CODE: 107.00 COUNSEL: TEXAS VETERANS COMMISSION HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded the Purple Heart (PH) Medal. Hospitalized while prisoner of war. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the...
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant states that his honorable discharge does not include the PH because the medal was mailed to his residence after his discharge. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that he was awarded the Purple Heart...
The applicant was discharged with a bad conduct discharge on 12 August 1968. The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant states that his General Court-Martial is news to him since he was not at the base at the time. Applicant’s rebuttal is at Exhibit E. On 3 June 2002, a letter was forwarded to the applicant suggesting that he consider providing evidence pertaining to his...
Evidence reflects that the applicant accumulated 9 months and 16 days of Total Active Federal Military Service (TAFMS) through his service with the Air Force Reserve and did not accumulate the 2 years TAFMS required to enlist in the Regular Air Force in the grade of E-4. Therefore, we are in complete agreement 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 applicant has not been the...
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application extracted from the applicant’s military medical records, are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force at Exhibits C-F. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends the application be denied. The DPMAF2 evaluation is at Exhibit F. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF...
Even though the applicant and the decedent were married at the time of his retirement (1 Apr 91), records indicate that the applicant’s valid concurrence in the decedent’s SBP election was obtained prior to his retirement. Subsequently, the decedent was eligible to provide coverage for the applicant during two SBP open enrollment periods authorized by Public Laws (PLs) 101-189 and 105-126 (1 Apr 92 – 31 Mar 93 and 1 Mar 99 – 29 Feb 00, respectively). We took notice of the applicant's...
Applicant’s records reflect that he was awarded the Air Force Outstanding Unit Award, Air Force Good Conduct Medal, Air Force Overseas Long Tour Ribbon, Air Force Training Ribbon and the Small Arms Expert Marksmanship Ribbon. We noted that he was asked to provide supporting documentation to substantiate his deployment to Libya in direct support of the Eldorado Canyon operations; however, he did not respond. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 Sep 02.
An election not to participate in the SBP is irrevocable if not revoked before the date on which the member first becomes entitled to retired pay. 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 applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Exhibit E. Letter,...
Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. ___________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Applicant enlisted in the Air National Guard on 7 Mar 2002. 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 applicant has not been the victim of...
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR STAFF EVALUATION: Applicant’s counsel provided a response to the Air Force evaluation, which included another letter from the applicant, her son-in-law and a friend of the deceased military member. 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...
After thoroughly reviewing the documentation submitted with this appeal, we are not persuaded that the contested report is an inaccurate assessment of the applicant's performance during the contested time period. The applicant asserts that there was insufficient supervision under the rater and additional rater for an Evaluation Performance Report (EPR) to be rendered; however, the Board finds insufficient documentation to support this contention. Exhibit F. Letter, Addendum to Report of...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-01851 INDEX CODE: 130.00 COUNSEL: NO HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded the Prisoner of War (POW) medal for his time as prisoner of war during WWII. He was given POW status; however, he has not been given the medal. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE...
On this same date, military medical authorities reviewed his medical records and determined that a physical examination was not required. Applicant states that he requested a medical examination prior to his discharge but was not given one. His medical records were reviewed immediately before his release from active duty and military medical authority determined that a physical examination was not required.
A copy of this letter is at Exhibit F. On 4 November 2002, the applicant requested that her case be temporarily withdrawn (See Exhibit G). Additionally, although hypertension is listed on the death certificate and the former member’s retirement physical examination documents a mildly elevated blood pressure, there is no evidence indicating hypertension was diagnosed or treated while on active duty. Neither does the record reveal, nor has the applicant provided any evidence that would...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-01953 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her bad conduct discharge be upgraded to general under honorable conditions and that her records list “conspiracy” as a misdemeanor and not a federal crime. On 23 April 1996, the Air Force Discharge Review Board reviewed and returned...
The VA told him to bring in his TDY records which he doesn’t have. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPAPP2 recommends the application be denied. While the possibility exists that the applicant may have been in Vietnam at some time, he has provided no evidence substantiating he was deployed to Vietnam for any specific dates or length of time.
Current Air Force promotion policy dictates that before a decoration is credited for a specific promotion cycle, the close out date of the decoration must be on or before the Promotion Eligibility Cutoff Date (PECD), and the date of the DÉCOR-6, Request for Decoration Printout (RDP), must be before the date of selection for the cycle in question. AFPC/DPPPR evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...
The following is a resume of his EPR profile: PERIOD ENDING PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION 15 May 00 3 (Contested Report) 15 May 01 3 (Contested Report) 15 May 02 5 Pursuant to a Inspector General (IG) complaint filed by the applicant containing two allegations that his additional rater inappropriately influenced his rater to give him a lower rating on the EPRs for the periods closing 15 May 00 and 15 May 01 and one allegation that the additional rater declined to support an EPR appeal package and...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-02168 INDEX CODE: 126.04 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 and any reprimands be removed from his records. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to his nonjudicial punishment are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air...
However, the law provides two mechanisms for changing spouse coverage to former spouse coverage, which must be exercised within the first year following divorce. If neither the member nor the former spouse requests the election change within the one-year eligibility period, former spouse coverage may not be established thereafter. The decedent and the applicant were married on 28 Dec 83; in Sep 85, the decedent notified the finance center of the change in his marital status and spouse...
He believes that this extra percentage for receipt of the Airman’s Medal for heroism might have been available at the time of his retirement but the medal was not on his DD Form 214. On 23 August 2002, the Personnel Council, Air Force Decorations Board, reviewed and denied applicant’s request for 10% increase in retired pay. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRRP recommends the application be denied.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-02412 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded the Vietnam Service Medal and all other associated medals for service at Detachment 3, 6994 Security Squadron from 6 January 1974 through 11 February 1974. The DoD Manual 1348.33-M states that the award of the Vietnam...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-02428 INDEX CODE: 131.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His duty title be corrected on his Officer Selection Brief (OSB) and he be considered for promotion to the grade of colonel by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for the CY01A (22 October 2001) Colonel (Dental Corps) Central Selection Board...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-02511 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 2C be changed so he may enlist in the Kansas Air National Guard. The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPAE states that the applicant separated 21 November 1995 after serving 2 months and...
The commander coerced her rater and withheld information from the endorser (squadron commander) and rater, creating an inaccurate evaluation of her performance. The AFPC/DPPP evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPPWB states that based on the applicant’s date of rank to staff sergeant, the first time she was considered for promotion to technical sergeant was cycle 02E6. THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ Vice Chair AFBCMR 02-02518 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and...
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 4 February 1983, the applicant enlisted in the regular Air Force for a period of 4 years. Based on the documentation in file, the discharge was consistent with the requirements of the discharge regulation (See Exhibit C). While the applicant believes his service characterization is harsh, we believe a general discharge (under honorable conditions) was munificient given the information in his discharge...
His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant states that when he enlisted in the Air Force he didn’t have to go to BMT and would be put in an on-the-job training status in supply. The applicant has provided no evidence showing the information in his discharge case file was erroneous, his substantial rights were...
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to his nonjudicial punishment, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLSA/JAJM reviewed the application and recommends denial. Likewise, there is no evidence presented to support the applicant’s claim that the punishment was the result of racial prejudice. The evidence of record indicates that the...
They stated the laws controlling the SBP preclude a married member, who declined spouse coverage at the time of retirement, from providing SBP former spouse coverage following divorce unless Congress authorizes an open enrollment. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit B. 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...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-02924 INDEX CODE: 100.03 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed so that he may reenlist in the Air Force. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 9 January...
The reason for the request was that on 22 June 1987, the member waived his right to a hearing before an administrative discharge board with the understanding that he would receive no less than a general discharge. Subsequently, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-10 paragraph 5-46, for misconduct based on minor disciplinary infractions and received a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. After careful consideration of the applicant’s request and the...
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The relevant facts pertaining to her discharge are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied. As of this date, this office has received no response. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD...
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The remaining relevant facts pertaining to his discharge are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied. DPPRS states that based upon the documentation in the file, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and...