AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NO: 98-01140
COUNSEL : None
HEARING DESIRED: No
Nov 1 3 a98
-
Applicant requests his Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) be changed
from 92T1 (Joint Undergraduate Navigator Training-JUNT) to 92T0
(Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training-SUPT).
Applicant's
submission is at Exhibit A.
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request
and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the
application be denied (Exhibit C) . The advisory opinions were
forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D) .
The applicant's response is at Exhibit E.
After careful consideration of applicant's request and the
available evidence of record, we find insufficient evidence of
error or injustice to warrant corrective action. The facts and
opinions stated in the advisory opinion appear to be based on the
evidence of record and have not been adequately rebutted by
applicant.
Absent persuasive evidence applicant was denied
rights to which entitled, appropriate regulations were not
followed, or appropriate standards were not applied, we find no
basis to disturb the existing record.
Accordingly, applicant's request is denied.
The Board staff is directed to inform applicant of this decision.
Applicant should also be informed that this decision is final and
will only be reconsidered upon the presentation of new relevant
evidence which was not reasonably available at the time the
application was filed.
Members of the Board Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Mr. Richard A.
Peterson and Mr. Patrick R. Wheeler considered this application
on 29 September 1998 in accordance with the provisions of Air
Force Instruction 36-2603 and the governing statute, 10 U.S.C.
1552 .
d + L l h
Pane Chair
Exhibits :
A. Applicant's DD Form 149
B. Available Master Personnel Records
C. Advisory Opinions
D.
E. Applicant's Response
AFBCMR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinions
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). Applicant’s response to the advisory opinion is at Exhibit E. After careful consideration of applicant's request and the available evidence of record, we find insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant corrective action.
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). After careful consideration of applicant's request and the available evidence of record, we find insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant corrective action.
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). The facts and opinions stated in the advisory opinion appear to be based on the evidence of record and have not been rebutted by applicant.
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinions were forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). The facts and opinions stated in the advisory opinions appear to be based on the evidence of record and have not been rebutted by applicant.
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit B). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit C). Applicant’s response to the advisory opinion is at Exhibit D. After careful consideration of applicant's request and the available evidence of record, we find insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant corrective action.
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C) The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). Applicant has submitted a request for correction of military records in regards to his self- initiated elimination (SIE) from T-4 1 training while attending the United States Air Force Academy (USAFA). However, if the decision is to grant the...
ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 95-03402 INDEX CODE: 134.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Air Training Command (ATC) Form 126A, Record of Commander’s Review Action, dated 2 September 1993, reflecting his self-initiated elimination (SIE) from the United States Air Force Academy (USAFA) T- 41 Pilot...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-01709
The HQ AFPC/DPAO evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: The applicant reviewed the advisory opinions and indicated that the only record stating he was unable to solo within 40 hours due to FTDs and was eliminated from the IFT program if the AETC Form 126A and it is a recommendation. As to the allegation he did not believe he was eliminated from IFT, the applicant signed a...
On 12 November 1996, the applicant was notified of his commander's intent to impose nonjudicial punishment on him under Article 15, UCMJ. On 13 December 1996, the applicant was notified of the commander’s intent to file the Article 15 in his Officer Selection Record (OSR). On 11 April 1997, the squadron commander recommended the applicant for “all of his requested Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) selections and locations.” No documentation exists as to how the applicant entered JUNT except...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00833
He was withdrawn from training and entered into the Commander’s Review (CR) process. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AETC/A3F recommends the application be denied, and states, in part that a student eliminated for self-initiated reasons, before, during or after course completion are ineligible for further flight training. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the...