AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04059
On 19 August 2008, the IPEB found the applicant fit and recommended Return to Duty, finding the medical condition "does not prevent you from reasonably performing the duties of your office, grade, rank or rating." Therefore, the Medical Consultant concludes the applicant's MS was not a medically unfitting condition at the time of separation and proper administrative procedures followed for determining fitness for duty. Exhibit G. Letter, Counsel, dated 26 May 2014.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04061
However, he reentered the Reserve in Jun 02, was promoted to the grade of Lt Col in Sep 04, and retired a second time in Feb 07 in the grade of Maj. Again, he reentered active duty in Jul 10 in the grade of Lt Col, this time under the Retired Rated Officer Recall Program (RRORP), and served through Apr 13. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 1 Aug 99, the applicant retired from the Regular Air Force in grade of Maj. On 26 Jun 02, the...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04071
He has served 4 years since the start of the Post-9/11 GI Bill. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with this application. Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04080
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-04080 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to show he transferred his Post-9/11 GI Bill educational benefits to all his dependents, not just his daughter, while on active duty. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application is described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR),...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04082
He was not advised prior to or during his out processing that he could elect spouse SBP coverage for his wife. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPFFF recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. We took notice of the applicants complete submission in judging the merits of the...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04084
In support of her request, the applicant submits copies of her AF IMT 348, Line of Duty Determination, report of medical evaluation letter dated 29 November 2005, statements of earned civilian income, and email correspondence pertaining to her INCAP pay application. The Air Force office of primary responsibility reviewed her request and determined that she had not exhausted her administrative remedies for requesting incapacitation pay in accordance with AFI 36-2603, Air Force Board for...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04096
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandums prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibits C, D, and E. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIM recommends approval of the applicants request to remove the 21 Oct 10 and 21 Dec 10 FAs from her records. Based on the documentation provided by the applicant, it is determined that the applicant was pregnant at the time the FAs were administered on 21 Oct...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04099
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-04099 XXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge be upgraded to a Honorable Discharge. The applicants complete submission is at Exhibit A. On 3 Jun 86, the applicant was notified by his commander of an amendment to the 24 Apr 86 Letter of...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04100
________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIT recommends denial. He was sent an initial notification through Right Now Technology (RNT) on 12 October 2012, stating the TEB application would expire in 14 calendar days, and to be approved, he must sign the required Statement of Understanding (SOU) and/or obtain the needed retainability (in this case, four years). ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04102
A similar request was considered and denied by the Fitness Assessment Appeals Board (FAAB), on the basis the applicant did not provide documentation from the FAC personnel stating the scores were entered into AFFMS incorrectly or provide the original score sheet. The applicants last six FA results are as follows: Date Composite Score Rating 12 Sep 13 90.89 Excellent (Exempt from SU) 7 Aug 12 94.20 Excellent 22 Jun 11 91.30 Excellent 29 Apr 11 86.50 Unsatisfactory (minimum SU) *3 Oct...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04106
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: NGB/A1PF recommends approval of the applicants request that he be permitted to request, execute and be paid for FY12 ARP agreement effective 1 Aug 12 through 30 Jun 15 at $15,000 per year. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR dated 28 Jun 14. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Jun 14, w/atchs.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04108
In an email dated 27 August 2012, the IO stated he was a witness in the CDI rather than a subject. In a letter dated 11 October 2012, the applicant received a LOR for having an unprofessional sexual relationship with another squadron commander. As a result of a complaint received from the husband of the FSS/CC that his wife was having an affair with the applicant while both were deployed; on 24 August 2012, the FSS/CCs commander appointed an IO to investigate four specific allegations as...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04127
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-04127 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be corrected to reflect award of the Kuwait Liberation Medal-Saudi Arabia (KLM-SA). To be eligible United States personnel must have served in support of Operation DESERT STORM...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04136
On 14 Jan 13 the applicant completed the contested FA with an unsatisfactory score. On 14 Feb 14, the applicants request was considered and partially granted by the Fitness Assessment Appeals Board (FAAB). The FSQ should be completed no earlier than 30 calendar days, but no later than 7 days prior to FA to provide time for medical evaluation, when indicated; however, failure to complete FSQ does not invalidate the FA.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04146
A similar request was considered and denied by the Fitness Assessment Appeals Board (FAAB), on the basis the applicant did not provide any documentation describing the injury and why he could not pass the contested FAs. If the FA is invalidated, the Airman will be required to retest on all non-exempt FA components within five duty days from original FA test date. NOTE: Original FA will count unless rendered invalid by the Unit Commander. In accordance with guidance at the time of...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04147
On 4 October 2010, he transferred from the Air Force (AF) Reserve to the Air National Guard (ANG). The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit B. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In further support of his request, the applicant submits a letter dated 6 March 2014, that states he concurs with the ARPC/DPTS...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04152
Because of these awards during the Vietnam war period, some military personnel have been awarded both the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal & the Vietnam Service Medal. After 18 March 2003, some personnel became eligible for the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, as well as the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force, which is at Exhibit C. AIR...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04160
As stated on the point credit summary, the member was instructed to review the summary and report errors within 30 days of receipt. However, the Board is willing to reconsider the applicants request should she produce the documentation to verify her participation during the missing dates. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 February 2014.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04161
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-04161 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be retained as an officer in the Air Force Reserve until such time as he can meet a special selection board (SSB) for promotion to the rank of Major. ARPC/PB states that the applicant did not provide documentation showing that his record contained errors, nor evidence that the board's recommendations were in any...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04173
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-04173 COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to Honorable. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She served honorably for three years and a few minor incidents caused her discharge. On 4 August 2006, the discharge authority directed that she be discharged with a general (under honorable...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04177
STATEMENT OF FACTS: According to the deceased former member's military personnel records, he initially entered the Regular Air Force on 30 Aug 55. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we find no evidence of an error or injustice that occurred in the discharge processing. In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, in the absence of any evidence related to the applicants...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04179
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial of his request to have his FA dated 20 Jun 12, removed from AFFMS indicating the applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to support his claim. The complete DPSIM evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial of the applicants request to remove the demotion action and restore his rank to SrA. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 13 Jun 14.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04196
Recommend invalidation of FA in question. A similar request was considered and denied by the Fitness Assessment Appeals Board (FAAB), on the basis the applicant should not have completed the FA due to injury. NOTE: Original FA will count unless rendered invalid by the Unit Commander. In accordance with guidance at the time of contested FA, AFI 36-2905 (1 Jul 10), Paragraph 2.3.2., All members must complete the FSQ prior to FA (Attachment 4). In accordance with guidance at the time of...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04200
________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He had a pre-existing medical condition, which should have placed him on profile during the contested FA In support of his appeal the applicant submits; a Medical Determination letter, signed by his medical provider on 30 Apr 13, which states the applicant had a documented medical condition that precluded him from achieving a passing score in a non-exempt portion of the FA test. The applicants...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04206
The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 25 April 2014, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice to warrant changing the applicants RE code or separation code as requested. Therefore, we recommend the applicant's records be corrected to the extent indicated below.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04223
On 20 Feb 14, a similar request was considered and denied by the Fitness Assessment Appeals Board (FAAB), stating The applicant's injury was not validated by the applicant's medical provider. Also, there was no indication the commander wanted to invalidate the Fitness Assessment. In accordance with (IAW) guidance at the time of contested FA, AFI 36-2905_ Fitness Program AFGM3 (3 Jan 13), Attachment 1, Section 10, If an Airman becomes injured or ill during the FA and is unable to complete...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04224
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-04224 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. We took notice of the applicants complete submission in judging the merits of the case and agree with the determination of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility that a change to his permanent change of station (PCS) fund code and a...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04248
A further review of his master personnel records and documentation submitted failed to provide any documents that substantiate Foreign Service time in Vietnam, Guam or Canada. 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 (OPR) and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04252
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-O4252 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. On 5 Mar 14, AFPC/DPSOR provided the applicant a reconstructed DD Form 214. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letters prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04255
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letters prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibits C, D, and E. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AETC/SGPS recommends denial of the applicants request to change his RE code to reflect eligibility for reenlistment, medical discharge, or medical separation, indicating there is no evidence of an error or an...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04258
This board is used to determine, which active duty members who have been twice nonselected for promotion (and who would otherwise be discharged or retired under Title 10 USC 632) will be retained based on the needs of the Air Force. The selective continuation process is not a force shaping board, but a product of nonselection for the second time that can result in separation from the Air Force. Counsel argues that the governing DoDI 1320.08 provision requires that officers within 6 years...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04259
DPSID is unable to determine the dates and locations for the applicant's TDY to Vietnam; therefore, the applicant is ineligible for award of the AFEM, VSM, or the VCM during the award inclusive periods. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that he was awarded the Vietnam Service Medal. The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR BC-2013- 04259 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04261
This board is used to determine, which active duty members who have been twice nonselected for promotion (and who would otherwise be discharged or retired under Title 10 USC 632) will be retained based on the needs of the Air Force. The selective continuation process is not a force shaping board, but a product of nonselection for the second time that can result in separation from the Air Force. Counsel argues that the governing DoDI 1320.08 provision requires that officers within 6 years...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04263
This board is used to determine, which active duty members who have been twice nonselected for promotion (and who would otherwise be discharged or retired under Title 10 USC 632) will be retained based on the needs of the Air Force. The selective continuation process is not a force shaping board, but a product of nonselection for the second time that can result in separation from the Air Force. Counsel argues that the governing DoDI 1320.08 provision requires that officers within 6 years...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04264
It is the date that officers selected for continuation would have been continued. The selective continuation process is not a force shaping board, but a product of nonselection for the second time that can result in separation from the Air Force. Counsel argues that the governing DoDI 1320.08 provision requires that officers within 6 years of retirement be offered continuation unless they have derogatory information in their record, which the applicant did not.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04265
It is the date that officers selected for continuation would have been continued. The selective continuation process is not a force shaping board, but a product of nonselection for the second time that can result in separation from the Air Force. Counsel argues that the governing DoDI 1320.08 provision requires that officers within 6 years of retirement be offered continuation unless they have derogatory information in their record, which the applicant did not.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04266
It is the date that officers selected for continuation would have been continued. The selective continuation process is not a force shaping board, but a product of nonselection for the second time that can result in separation from the Air Force. Counsel argues that the governing DoDI 1320.08 provision requires that officers within 6 years of retirement be offered continuation unless they have derogatory information in their record, which the applicant did not.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04267
It is the date that officers selected for continuation would have been continued. The selective continuation process is not a force shaping board, but a product of nonselection for the second time that can result in separation from the Air Force. Counsel argues that the governing DoDI 1320.08 provision requires that officers within 6 years of retirement be offered continuation unless they have derogatory information in their record, which the applicant did not.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04268
The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of applicants requests to remove the contested EPRs ending 12 Aug 09 and 29 Jun 10. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice to warrant reversing his demotion to the grade of SSgt, promoting him to the grade of MSgt with back pay or removing the contested EPRs from his record. Therefore, aside from DPSOEs recommendation to time bar the applicants...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04269
It is the date that officers selected for continuation would have been continued. The selective continuation process is not a force shaping board, but a product of nonselection for the second time that can result in separation from the Air Force. Counsel argues that the governing DoDI 1320.08 provision requires that officers within 6 years of retirement be offered continuation unless they have derogatory information in their record, which the applicant did not.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04270
This board is used to determine, which active duty members who have been twice nonselected for promotion (and who would otherwise be discharged or retired under Title 10 USC 632) will be retained based on the needs of the Air Force. The selective continuation process is not a force shaping board, but a product of nonselection for the second time that can result in separation from the Air Force. Counsel argues that the governing DoDI 1320.08 provision requires that officers within 6 years...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04271
It is the date that officers selected for continuation would have been continued. The selective continuation process is not a force shaping board, but a product of nonselection for the second time that can result in separation from the Air Force. Counsel argues that the governing DoDI 1320.08 provision requires that officers within 6 years of retirement be offered continuation unless they have derogatory information in their record, which the applicant did not.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04272
It is the date that officers selected for continuation would have been continued. The selective continuation process is not a force shaping board, but a product of nonselection for the second time that can result in separation from the Air Force. Counsel argues that the governing DoDI 1320.08 provision requires that officers within 6 years of retirement be offered continuation unless they have derogatory information in their record, which the applicant did not.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04273
It is the date that officers selected for continuation would have been continued. The selective continuation process is not a force shaping board, but a product of nonselection for the second time that can result in separation from the Air Force. Counsel argues that the governing DoDI 1320.08 provision requires that officers within 6 years of retirement be offered continuation unless they have derogatory information in their record, which the applicant did not.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04274
It is the date that officers selected for continuation would have been continued. The selective continuation process is not a force shaping board, but a product of nonselection for the second time that can result in separation from the Air Force. Counsel argues that the governing DoDI 1320.08 provision requires that officers within 6 years of retirement be offered continuation unless they have derogatory information in their record, which the applicant did not.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04275
This board is used to determine which active duty members who have been twice nonselected for promotion (and who would otherwise be discharged or retired under 10 USC 632) will be retained based on the needs of the Air Force. The selective continuation process is not a force shaping board, but a product of nonselection for the second time that can result in separation from the Air Force. Counsel argues that the governing DoDI 1320.08 provision requires that officers within 6 years of...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04276
It is the date officers selected for continuation would have been continued. The selective continuation process is not a force shaping board, but a product of nonselection for the second time that can result in separation from the Air Force. Counsel argues that the governing DoDI 1320.08 provision requires that officers within 6 years of retirement be offered continuation unless they have derogatory information in their record, which the applicant did not.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04277
This board is used to determine, which active duty members who have been twice nonselected for promotion (and who would otherwise be discharged or retired under Title 10 USC 632) will be retained based on the needs of the Air Force. The selective continuation process is not a force shaping board, but a product of nonselection for the second time that can result in separation from the Air Force. Counsel argues that the governing DoDI 1320.08 provision requires that officers within 6 years...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04278
It is the date officers selected for continuation would have been continued. The selective continuation process is not a force shaping board, but a product of nonselection for the second time that can result in separation from the Air Force. Counsel argues that the governing DoDI 1320.08 provision requires that officers within 6 years of retirement be offered continuation unless they have derogatory information in their record, which the applicant did not.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04279
This board is used to determine which active duty members who have been twice nonselected for promotion (and who would otherwise be discharged or retired under 10 USC 632) will be retained based on the needs of the Air Force. The selective continuation process is not a force shaping board, but a product of nonselection for the second time that can result in separation from the Air Force. Counsel argues the governing DoDI 1320.08 provision requires that officers within 6 years of retirement...