AFBCMR
1500 West Perimeter Road
Joint Base Andrews NAF Washington, MD 20762-6604
Dear :
This is in response to your DD Form 149, Application for Correction of Military Record,
dated August 24, 2013 which is essentially a request for reconsideration of your application for
correction of your military records, AFBCMR Docket Number BC-1989-00444.
As you are aware on June 9, 1989, the Air Force Board for Correction of Military
Records considered your request to upgrade your dishonorable discharge to honorable.
After careful consideration of the evidence provided, the Board determined the evidence
you presented was insufficient to find an error or injustice and denied your request. On
July 19, 1989, you were notified of the Boards decision and provided a copy of the
Record of Proceedings, which contained the rationale for the Boards decision.
On August 28, 2014, you were invited to submit verification of your post service
activities as a gainfully employed, law abiding citizen, however you provided only a
personal statement and one supporting document. We carefully examined your request
and find it does not meet the criteria for reconsideration. Reconsideration is authorized
only where newly discovered relevant evidence is presented which was not available
when the application was submitted. In addition, the reiteration of facts previously
addressed by the Board, uncorroborated personal observations, or additional arguments
on the evidence of record are not adequate grounds for reopening a case.
In view of the above, further action on your application is not warranted.
Sincerely,
AF | BCMR | CY1994 | BC 1994 10281
We have examined your recent application and, inasmuch as it contains essentially a similar request which was previously considered and denied by the Board and you have provided no new relevant evidence, we find that it does not meet the criteria for reconsideration by the Board. Absent judicial action, the Air Force considers your AFBCMR decision final. I know this might not be the answer you were seeking, but, no further action on your application will be taken.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120011259
Counsel states: * since the Board's decision, his client has discovered evidence which supports her assertion that she submitted the proper documentation well before the deadline for submission of a deemed election * a pay statement shows the applicant's SBP benefits were terminated in October 1989, which coincides with the U.S. Army Finance and Accounting Center (USAFAC) correspondence acknowledging receipt of her court order and supporting documents * the Second Decree contained no...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC 2007 02990
On 4 February 1976, the Board considered and denied a request from the applicant to amend his DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge, to include the discharge authority. On 25 September 2008, the Board considered and denied his request for a medical retirement, a change to his narrative reason for separation, RE code, award of the AFGCM, completed basic training, completed career development courses, and promotion to the grade of sergeant. We have...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-1991-02414A
For a further accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the application, and the rationale of the earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings at Exhibit G. In a letter, dated 1 August 1995, the applicant requested reconsideration of his application and provided additional documentation (Exhibit H); however, in a letter dated 8 October 1997, he was advised that his request did not meet the criteria for reconsideration by the Board (Exhibit I). In letters, dated...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04234-2
For an accounting of the facts and the rationale of the earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings (ROP) at Exhibit F. On 5 November 2012 the applicant submitted a request for reconsideration. ________________________________________________________________ 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01973-2
________________________________________________________________ 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. Panel Chair AFBCMR 1500 West Perimeter Road, Suite 3700 Joint Base...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC 2007 01973 2
________________________________________________________________ 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. Panel Chair AFBCMR 1500 West Perimeter Road, Suite 3700 Joint Base...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-1989-01497A
In a letter, dated 23 December 2002, the applicant was advised that inasmuch as his request contained essentially the same request that was previously considered and denied by the Board and he had provided no new relevant evidence, it did not meet the criteria for reconsideration by the Board (Exhibit H). After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the additional documentation submitted by the applicant, we are not persuaded that a change to his characterization of service...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-1989-02499
On 28 August 1971, the convening authority approved the applicant’s general (under honorable conditions) discharge. On 6 June 1989, the applicant submitted an application to the Board requesting his general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. On 21 February 1990, the Board considered and denied the applicant’s request based on untimeliness.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-1996-02064A
A summary of the evidence considered by the Board and the rationale for its decision is set forth in the Second Addendum to the ROP at Exhibit R. In counsel’s most recent request for reconsideration, submitted on behalf of the applicant, he contends that his client’s diagnoses of unsuiting conditions were erroneous and that her condition was instead an unfitting and ratable one that should have resulted in a disability retirement. Counsel’s complete submission is at Exhibit...