RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-03288
INDEX CODE: 110
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING: NO
The applicant requests that his under other than honorable conditions
(UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to honorable. Applicant's submission is
at Exhibit A.
Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Washington, D. C., provided a copy of an investigation report, which
is attached at Exhibit C.
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and
provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application
be denied (Exhibit D). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the
applicant for review and response (Exhibit E). 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. Richard A. Peterson, Mr. Gregory H. Petkoff,
and Ms. Melinda J. Loftin considered this application on 4 November
1999 in accordance with the provisions of Air Force Instruction 36-
2603, and the governing statute, 10, U.S.C. 1552.
RICHARD A. PETERSON
Panel Chair
Exhibits:
A. Applicant's DD Form 149
B. Available Master Personnel Records
C. FBI Report
D. Advisory Opinion
E. AFBCMR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinion
Applicant's submission is at Exhibit A. Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Washington, D.C., provided an investigative report which is attached at Exhibit C. The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit D). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit E). After careful consideration of applicant's...
Applicant's submission is at Exhibit A. Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Clarksburg, WV, provided an investigative report which is attached at Exhibit C. The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit D). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit E). Applicant’s response to the advisory opinion is at...
Applicant's submission is at Exhibit A. Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Washington, D.C., provided an investigative report which is attached at Exhibit C. The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit D). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit E). RICHARD A. PETERSON Panel Chair Exhibits: A.
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1998-01186
Applicant's submission is at Exhibit A. Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Washington, D.C., provided an investigative report which is attached at Exhibit C. The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit D). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit E). RICHARD A. PETERSON Panel Chair Exhibits: A.
Applicant's submission is at Exhibit A. Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Washington, D.C., provided an investigative report which is attached at Exhibit C. The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit D). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit E). RICHARD A. PETERSON Panel Chair Exhibits: A.
The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (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. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.
The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Clarksburg, WV, provided an investigative report which is attached at Exhibit E. The FBI report was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit F). 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...
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. RICHARD A. PETERSON Panel 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). Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.
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.