ZSLJNSEL: None -
ZECORD OF PZOZEEDINGS
-
IN THE MATTER G'F:
AIR FORCE EGARD FOR CORREZTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
3CCKET NUMBER: 98-01667
DEC 1 0 G*
HEARING DESIRED: NO
Applicanz r e q u e s t s award of a? xkhtional Oak Leaf Cluster (OLC)
to t h e Ai:- Farce CkitstandLnu Znit Award (AFOUA) and a second
award of t h e Republic of Vi=- --nari Gallantry Cross w i t h P a l n ? .
Applicant ' s submission is ac Ex:;:kl~ A.
The appropriate Air Force cff:c?
evaluated applicant's request
and provided an advisory opir_:on to the Board recommending the
applicacion be denled (Exhiblt : I .
The advisory opinion was
(Exhibit D) .
fm-warded to t h e applicar,c f o ~
Applicant ' s r e s p o n s e to the ad\,,-1scq opinlcr, is at Exhibit E.
After careful considerat:ior- cf applicant s request and t h e
available pvidence of recoro, wz zind insufficient evidence of
errol- 3r in;Ustice tc warrant csrr-zctive action. T h e facts and
z;=lil;lon appear to be based on t h e
opinions s t a t e d in t r e advlso
rmt been aaequately rebutted by
evidence of record and have
Absent persuas1l"Te e~~r_der,ce applicant was aenied
applicant.
rights to which entitled, - m m ~ iiLapriate regulations were n o t
we find no
followed, ci appropriate stz.:i
basls to d i s t u r b the ZxisEing i-rsco~-c.
review and response
:~,y'ek^e rLot.
~~
Accc:-c?ieglli, applicant Is request 2 s zlsnied.
Exhibits:
Y C. SAIINDZRS
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...
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 majority of the panel concluded that the contested report was not invalidated by a possible personality conflict between the rater and applicant, nor was it used as a means of retribution. The Chief, Inquiries/Special Actions Section, AFMPC/DPMAJWl, also reviewed this application and states that should the Board void the contested report in its entirety, upgrade the overall rating, o r make any other significant change, the applicant will be entitled to supplemental promotion...
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 offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). Available Master Personnel Records C. Advisory Opinions D. SAF/MIBR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinions D E P A R T M E N T OF THE A I R FORCE H E A D Q U A R T E R S AIR FQRCE P E R S O N N E L C E N T E R R A N D O L P H AIR FORCE B A S E T E X A S -- 21 August 1998 MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR FROM: HQ AFPC/DPAPPl 550 C Street West, Ste...
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 . 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 .
The facts surrounding applicar-z ' s separation f r o x the Air Naticrdl Guard and A i r Force Reserve are m k n o w n inr.srnucli as the discharge correspondence is not available. T h e appropriate Air Force o f f I C E ?--aluated applicant Is request ar,d z 1 p r c m i d e a ar, advisory o p i n i s a t h e Board recommerLdir~: t h e was application be denied (Exhicx 13 . AvaAable Master Personnel Recgl-3s C. Advisory Opinion D. E. Applicant I s Response F. AFBCMR L t r to Applicant, d t...
AF | DRB | CY2003 | FD2003-00426
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL) G W E AFSNISSAN AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD Texas Veterans Commission 1 ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD 1 ( 2 ( APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE 1 3 1 LETTER OF NOTIFICATION 4 BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE ( ( TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE I 1 1 -. On or about 29 November 1988, he failed his room inspection, for which he received...
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Office of Personnel Program Management, HQ AFPC/DPPAES reviewed this appeal and states that applicant should have been extended from 9 April 1996 to 30 January 1998. Instead, he should be extended beginning 10 April 1996 and ending on 30 January 1998, compensated as discussed in the advisory opinion (with no pay for the period 7 June to 11 July 1996) , and allowed to extend for one promotion cycle beyond his projected HYT date. He received no pay and allowances...