I
SECOND ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF:
AUG 2 6 1998
DOCKET NUMBER: 96-00462, Cs#2
COUNSEL :
HEARING DESIRED: NO
RESUME OF CASE:
In an application dated 6 February 1996, applicant requested that
his character/disorder discharge be upgraded.
On 14 November 1996, the Board considered and denied applicant's
request. A complete copy of the Record of Proceedings (ROP) is
attached at Exhibit R.
Applicant submitted additional documentation which was examined
by the Board. On 14 March 1997, applicant was advised that the
Board concluded the documentation did not meet the criteria for
reconsideration (Exhibit S) .
Applicant again submitted additional information which was
forwarded to the Board for review, after obtaining an advisory
opinion from the BCMR Medical Consultant. The Board considered
and denied applicant's request on 10 March 1998. A complete copy
of the Addendum ROP is attached at Exhibit T.
Applicant submitted additional information which was reviewed by
the AFBCMR staff and determined not to meet the criteria for
reconsideration. On 5 June 1998, he was s o advised (Exhibit U).
Applicant submitted a letter to the Executive Director, AFBCMR,
again requesting that the previous information be reconsidered
(Exhibit V) . In addition, applicant submitted new documentation
to the Secretary of the Air Force which is attached at Exhibit W.
His case has been reopened at this time.
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of probable error or injustice. After thoroughly
reviewing the entire case file again, to include the
documentation attached to his latest letter and his submission
through the office of the Secretary of the Air Force, we reaffirm
our earlier decision that there is insufficient documentation
indicating that there were medical conditions which required
~
AFBCMR 96-00462
processing through the Air Force disability system during the
time period applicant was on active duty. In short, applicant
has again failed to sustain his burden of establishing the
existence of either an error or an injustice warranting favorable
action on these requests. Applicant has received a disability
rating from the VA, and we believe that the VA is the appropriate
agency for awarding compensation for his conditions. We again
note that the Air Force and the VA are separate federal agencies
and operate under different laws and policies. The Air Force
assesses a service member's disability with respect to fitness
for duty, while the VA rates for any and all service connected
conditions, to the degree they interfere with future
employability, without consideration of fitness. In view of the
foregoing and in the absence of persuasive evidence to the
contrary, we again find no compelling evidence upon which to
recommend the requested relief.
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 application will only be reconsidered
upon the submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not
considered with this application.
The following members of the Board considered this application in
Executive Session on 6 August 1998 and 21 August 1998, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Martha Maust, Panel Chair
Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Member
Mr. Jackson A. Hauslein, Member
The following documentary evidence was considerec
Exhibi
Exhibi
Exhibi
Exhibi
Exhibi
Exhibi
t R. ROP, dated 23 Dec 96, w/atchs.
t S Letter, AFBCMR, dated 14 Mar 97, w/atchs.
t T. Addendum ROP, dated 3 Apr 98, w/atchs.
t U. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 5 Jun 98.
t V. Applicant's submission, undated.
t W. Applicant's submission via SAF ofc, w/atchs.
MhRTHA M A U S f
Panel Chair
2
On 29 Jun 98, the applicant provided additional documentation through his senator and requests the Board reconsider his requests and award him 100% disability retirement from the Air Force and change his DOR to 15 Dec 81 (see Exhibit S). _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief Medical Consultant, AFBCMR, SAF/PC, reviewed applicant’s request and indicated that all evidence of record points to the applicant having been...
AF | BCMR | CY1998 | BC-1995-02003B
On 29 Jun 98, the applicant provided additional documentation through his senator and requests the Board reconsider his requests and award him 100% disability retirement from the Air Force and change his DOR to 15 Dec 81 (see Exhibit S). _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief Medical Consultant, AFBCMR, SAF/PC, reviewed applicant’s request and indicated that all evidence of record points to the applicant having been...
In summary, no senior rater, no MLRB President, no central selection board, and no -special selection board has ever reviewed his CY90 (1 year BPZ)"records that included the revised CY89 ( 2 year BPZ) PRF. Based on the SRR review of his PO589 PRF and subsequent upgrade, the applicant was considered and not selected for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by SSB for the CY89A Board. Based on upon a senior rater review (SRR) of his previous CY89 (1 5 May 89) lieutenant colonel...
A completely different board reviewed the applicant's OSR for each board. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Counsel reviewed the Air Force evaluations and provides his response which is attached at Exhibit L. THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. 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 application...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1996-00856A
Applicant is now requesting that he receive a direct promotion to the grade of colonel as if selected by the Calendar Year 1993A (CY93A) Central Colonel Selection Board. Applicant’s 10 October 1997 letter and complete submission, to include Evidentiary Support - Illegal Selection Boards, is attached at Exhibit I. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Operations, Selection Board Secretariat, HQ AFPC/DPPB, states that they do not...
Applicant is now requesting that he receive a direct promotion to the grade of colonel as if selected by the Calendar Year 1993A (CY93A) Central Colonel Selection Board. Applicant’s 10 October 1997 letter and complete submission, to include Evidentiary Support - Illegal Selection Boards, is attached at Exhibit I. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Operations, Selection Board Secretariat, HQ AFPC/DPPB, states that they do not...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1995-01906B
On 10 September 1996, the Board considered and denied his requests. Counsel’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit Q. For counsel’s information, that memo and the related documents were submitted by the applicant in his original appeal.
On 10 September 1996, the Board considered and denied his requests. Counsel’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit Q. For counsel’s information, that memo and the related documents were submitted by the applicant in his original appeal.
On 17 November 1994, the Board considered and denied applicant's request that he be returned to active duty in the grade of master sergeant, with service credit for the period following his dischaxge up to his return to active duty (Exhibits A through H). The complete statement is at Exhibit N. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: By letter, dated 12 September 1997, Major General B---, USAFR, Retired, responded in applicant's behalf to the additional advisory opinion,...
SECOND ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 94-03273 INDEX CODE 131.01 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ RESUME OF CASE: On 13 June 1995, the Board considered and, by a majority vote, denied applicant’s request to void the Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) prepared for the Calendar Year 1992B (CY92B) Central Lieutenant Colonel Board and provide...