RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-01664
INDEX CODE: 110.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
Applicant requests that her narrative reason for her separation
“Substandard Performance of Duty-In Lieu of Involuntary Discharge” be
changed. Applicant's submission is at Exhibit A.
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). As of this date, no
response has been received by this office.
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 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. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Mr. Grover L. Dunn, and
Mr. Steven A. Shaw considered this application on 19 August 1999,
in accordance with the provisions of Air Force Instruction 36-2603 and
the governing statute, 10 U.S.C. 1552.
THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
Panel Chair
Exhibits:
A. Applicant's DD Form 149
B. Available Master Personnel Records
C. Advisory Opinion
D. 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). 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 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). 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 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 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 C). The 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. THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ Vice Chair Exhibits: A.
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 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/counsel for review and response (Exhibit D). The facts and opinions stated in the advisory opinions and the AFDRB Brief 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 advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinions were forwarded to the applicant and counsel for review and response (Exhibit D). Accordingly, applicant's request is denied.
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.
However, when they corrected the report, they removed the midterm feedback date but neglected to remove the initial feedback date from Section V (Rater’s Comments). On 7 February 2000, the Evaluation Reports Appeal Section, AFPC/DPPPAE, administratively corrected the contested EPR and removed the erroneous initial feedback date of “25 August 1996,” and inserted the statement “Ratee has established that feedback wasn’t provided IAW AFI 36- 2403.” The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated...
The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied applicant's request on 10 Apr 96. The decision of the AFDRB 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.