I
RECORB OF PF,OCEEDINGS
FO F, CORRECTION OF MILITAR'Y RECORDS
AIR FORCE 193AR9
MATTER O F :
TIN THE
DOCKET NO: 98-01366
HEARING DESIRED: YES
Applicant requests that his urdesirable discharge be upqraded to
honorable. Applicact's s u b x i s s i o ~ is at Exhibit Ti.
The appropriate Air Force off;re evaluated applicant's request
and provided an advisory o p i n i o r . to the Board recommendlng the
applicdtion be denied ( E x h i m t C \ . The advisory opinion was
forwarded to counsel ana the ap2Licant f o r review and response
(Exhibit D) . Appiicant's resporse to the advisory opinion is at
Exhibit E.
l2ursuar.t ts the 2 o a r d ' s
request, the Federal Bureau of
Investigatlon, Washington, D . C . , provided an investigative report
which is attached at Exhibit F .
After careful cons1derat:on
c f dpplicant's reiquest and the
available evidence 3: yecord, -,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...
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request that his records be corrected to reflect award of the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit D). After careful consideration of applicant's request that his records be corrected to reflect award of the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, and the available evidence of record, we find insufficient evidence of error or injustice to...
In an application dated 7 July 1990, he requested that Blocks 9a, 9c and 13 on his DD Form 214 should also be changed in view of his RE code being changed to 1J. A copy of the Record of Proceedings is attached at Exhibit C. g : The Military Personnel Technician, AFMPC/DPMARS2, reviewed the application and states that if applicant had been given an RE code of 1J at the time he separated, he would have been released from active duty and would have fulfilled his MSO in the Air Force Reserve. ...
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...
A I R FORCE BOARD FOX ZCRRECTION OF :v A C L ~ V E S t a t u s List from t h e K e t i r e d Reser-T,-e ana a s s i g n e d t o ar, a p p r o p r i a t e Cztegory A o r B ~ G X ~ M L A p p h c a n t ’ s submission IS at E x h i b i t A. The appropriste Air Force of?::? ?vallJstec a p p l x a r L t ’ 5 1 - q u e s t ana p r o v i d e d an a d v i s o r y o p i ~ x x zo the EDard -ecommending t h e a p p l i c a t i o n be d e n i e d (ExhibiL : .
The appropriate Air Force off ice evaluated applicant I 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). .” Another states “I know that I can reenlist rather than extend, but I have elected to execute this extension instead of reenlisting.” Both of these statements clearly indicate the applicant was aware of the reenlistment options.
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.
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). 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 records indicate member’s military service was reviewed and appropriate action was taken.
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). Section 8961, Title 10, U.S.C., (Atch 5) states: “Unless entitled to a higher retired grade under some other provision of law a regular or reserve of the Air Force who retires other than for physical disability retires in the regular or reserve grade that he holds on the date of his retirement.” Again, based on the Comptroller...
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). Applicant did not identif) any specific errors in the discharge processing nor provide facts which warrant an upgrade of the discharge he received. Accordingly, we recommend applicant's request be denied.