. DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
WASHINGTON DC
E B 1 2 7399
I
Office of the Assistant Secretary
AFBCMR 97-01931
MEMOKANDlJM 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:
records.
partment of the Air Force relating to
be corrected to show that the period 9 May
d all reference thereto be deleted from his
A
A
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
RECOZC ?F PROCEEDINGS
His r e c o r d s be covrected tc r b ~ r l e z t that the per:od
was n o t l o s t time.
9-11 &!.lay 1995
A?PLICANT CONTENDS THA'T :
.
T h e u r : i r
, ~ a s lcst time, 5
Medical c z r e forms p r o v i d e c , E:,- tne applicant r e f l e c t that:
O n 6 May 1555, he
seer, for c h r o n i c YAYNE E?. G R A C I E
discovered the absence of an AF E'orrr 63 in his records upon receipt of that RIP; however, that ;s irzelevant to The issue that h e i n c u r e d the A D S C . However, we do not find his uncorroborated contentions, in and by themselves, sufficiently compelling to conclude that he unwittingly incurred an ADSC for training he would not have accepted had he been aware of the ADSC prior to entering the training. Exhibit B.
After careful of applicant’s zsquest and the available evidence csrsid3ra:icn sf z z c a r d , -;;z find no evidence :hat the applicant’s d i s c k z r g e :hias A7c7,” 2°F L , afz3.f ~s-~siaering the facts zxd circumstances l e a d i r i g zz z r ~ e a p ~ l i z z r - : ’ s separation and -:-Fw of the fact t k L a t , ~::z;e: c u r r e r , t standards, the applica:? iliamond, Member Ms. Sophie A. \:;ark, Mernber F i l l members v o t e d to correct the records, as recommended.
1 s i ., I Office of the Assistant Secretary \1 BC'JlR 98-00007 AIR FORCE BOLL-RD FOP- C O k A ? wclu:d bz a u t h o r i z e d to r e t u r n t o Germany 111 a rwpoi-a:-y d u t y (TDY) s t ; i t u s t o complete z s h i p his EX-*' and HHGs to h i s new d u t y n e c e s s a r y He was a d v i s e d t h a t k I?-auld n o t be s t a t i o n k F Z i . 3 J and H H G s LC h i s new d u t y n e c e s s a r l r a c t i o n s A F B ) aiic -,&:as a d v i s e d t h a t h e would n o t be s t a t l...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 01368
AF | DRB | CY2006 | FD2005-00376
R 111111111111111111 1 -.-- S1G -- --------- 2 ---- ~ TI1 F OF BOAItD Y IDENT 2 ~ 2 Z Z Z Z Z Z ' L ~ ~ ~ ~ I"' I 1 SANMKDR 550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00 hL'CItETAR1' O F T H E AIR FORCE PERSOh3El C'Ollh('lL .AIR FOR('E DISCHAICGE HL'VIE\V BO4RD 1535 COMMAND DR. EE WING, 3RD PI.OOR ANDREWS AFR, MU 20761-7002 I (EF-V2) Previous edition will be used d AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISlONAL RATIONALE CASE NUMBER FD-2005-00376 GENERAL: The applicant appeals for...
AF | DRB | CY2004 | FD2003-00527
Not k~mwing this discharge ~. (Atch 6 ) g. On 12 J u l y 1989, you went from your appointed p l a c e of duty without a u t h o r i t y , a s evidenced by a Record o f I n d i v i d u a l Counseling, dated 12 J u l y 1989. If you a r e discharged, you w i l l be i n e l i g i b l e f o r 3.
The appropriate Air Force o f f i c e evaluated applicarit ‘ s request ana provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit Z The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D ) . T r. 0 additional evaluation was forwarded to applicant f c r re-Jie+; ar,d comment (Exhibit G ’ i . Applicant’s response to the additional evaluation is at Exhibit H. The appropriate After careful consiaeratio~ cf applicant's r e q u e...
AF | DRB | CY2003 | FD2003-00262A
t I f you fail t-j consult counsel sr to submit s r a t e c e n t s i n y o u r f . Memo for Record, dtd 12 Aug 8 9 I5 .. Nemo far Record, d t d 1 2 Ang 89. Statement; dtd 1 3 Aug 9 9 , I 8 .
f o r a 31TY move from The accessorial charge The appllcart is :--c+- -.ls - 7 i 37-,217 45 ILTT stated that after a thorough review of the records, they can find no evidence of miscounseling or an error on the part of the Thus, ILTT recommended the application be denied Government. After a t h o r o u g h review of the evidence of record and applicant s submission, we are unpersuaded that he should be reimbursed additional expenses for moving his sailboat. Diamond, Member Mr. Henry RGmG...
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit F , The Chief Medical Consultant, AFBCMR, review the application and states that records clearly show the applicant was fit for duty through all the years of his active duty service, and, while having some residual problems relating to his Korean War experiences, he was well and able zo perform his dEties up to the time of h i s retirement, He is being compensated appropriately by the DVA for his service-connected, but not unfitting,...