RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-00518
INDEX CODE: 100, 107
COUNSEL: None
HEARING DESIRED: No
Applicant requests that his net service be calculated on his DD Form
214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge From Active Duty) and that he
be awarded the Air Force Training Ribbon. Applicant's submission is
at Exhibit A.
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's requests 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). Applicant's response
to the advisory opinions 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 opinions 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. Oscar A. Goldfarb, Mr. Patrick R. Wheeler,
and Mr. Charlie E. Williams, Jr., considered this application on 27
July 1999 in accordance with the provisions of Air Force Instruction
36-2603, and the governing statute, 10, U.S.C. 1552.
OSCAR A. GOLDFARB
Panel Chair
Exhibits:
A. Applicant's DD Form 149
B. Available Master Personnel Records
C. Advisory Opinions
D. AFBCMR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinions
E. Applicant's Response
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). 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 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 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 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.
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 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.
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.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-03507 INDEX CODE: 110 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING: YES The deceased former service member’s widow, herein after known as applicant, requests that her deceased husband’s discharge be upgraded to honorable. 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...
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.
There are currently no provisions of law for officers promoted to the grades of lieutenant colonel and above, who are medically disqualified for worldwide duty, to retire in grade with less than three years satisfactory service. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that he should be retired from the U. S. Air Force Reserve in the higher grade of colonel. We therefore agree with the recommendations of the Air Force and adopt the...
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The reasons applicant believes he has been the victim of an error and/or an injustice are contained in his complete submission, which is at Exhibit A. When members schedule leave in late September, they risk losing days if unable to take leave as planned due to unforeseen circumstances, such as a short-notice temporary duty (TDY). _________________________________________________________________ The...
The applicant filed a similar appeal under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, which was denied by the Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAB). _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Promotion, Evaluation and Recognition Division, AFPC/DPPP, reviewed this application and states that when requesting an entire report be voided, the applicant must take into consideration that...