RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO: 99-00706
INDEX CODE 137.01
COUNSEL: None
HEARING DESIRED: No
Applicant requests that she be granted an annuity under the Reserve
Component Survivor Benefit Plan (RCSBP). 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). The applicant provided
a rebuttal, and a friend of the applicant and her late husband also
provided a letter and a video tape. The responses and tape are 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 opinion appear to be based on the evidence of record
and have not been sufficiently rebutted by applicant (or her friend).
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 Mrs. Barbara A. Westgate, Ms. Kathy L.
Boockholdt, and Mr. Mike Novel considered this application on
in accordance with the provisions of Air Force
Instruction 36-2603, and the governing statute, 10, U.S.C. 1552.
Panel Chair
Exhibits:
A. Applicant's DD Form 149 & Supplementary Letters, w/atchs
B. Available Master Personnel Records
C. Advisory Opinion
D. AFBCMR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinion
E. Applicant's & Friend’s Responses & Video Tape
CG | BCMR | Discharge and Reenlistment Codes | 2007-135
The applicant further argued that SN A’s CGIS statement was not credible because it contained inconsistencies with her subsequent statement to the PIO or with the statements of the other witnesses. She stated that she saw 3. SN B who was allegedly involved in homosexual acts with the applicant stated to CGIS that SN A was attracted to the applicant, but the applicant was not interested.
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-00944
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The evidence supporting the allegations against him is all circumstantial and the video surveillance tapes do not actually show him removing or replacing any stickers. The applicant is in error in stating that the absence of direct video evidence showing his alleged sticker-swapping offenses is proof that they were not committed at all. After considering the matters raised by the applicant, the...
AF | DRB | CY2004 | FD2004-00171
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL) GRADE AFSNISSAN AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD I I MEMBER SITTING 1 I ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD 2 1 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE 1 3 LETTER OF NOTIFICATION 4 ( BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD ADDlTIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE ( TAPE RECORDMG OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE I HEARING DATE 21 Oct 2004 CASE NUMBER FD-2004-00171 1 Case heard via video teleconference between...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 03874
Even the military review board deemed his punitive discharge to be a Heavy Price To Pay. While the appellate court was saddened that a fine military career was terminated by a punitive discharge, the sentence as approved by the convening authority was appropriate for the offenses of which the applicant stood convicted. While the applicant received a severe punishment, when he otherwise served honorably for 20 years, the commander, convening authority and appellate courts were in position...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01914
The specific reasons for this action were on 3 Jun 87, he received a Letter of Counseling for engaging in a fight with his roommate; on 18 May 05 he failed to return five video tapes in a timely manner to a local video store; on 5 May 87, he received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for passing counterfeit bills on two separate occasions; on 9 Mar 87, he received an LOR for writing a worthless check; on 18 Feb 87, he received an LOR for writing another worthless check; on 6 Feb 87, he received an...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03983
Additionally, the FAC waited until 45 seconds into the assessment to tell the applicant to fix her body. She has never failed an FA before or since the contested assessment. FAC augmentee or another member paired to accomplish muscle fitness components will monitor and count the correct number of push-ups. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Mar 14.
AF | DRB | CY2007 | FD2006-00341
1 "... AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD I 1 NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIIISI. Respondent's Response: The respondent consulted counsel and submitted a written statement on her behalf. Forward a recommendation for separation under paragraph 5.54 with an Honorable discharge to the General Court-Martial Convening Authority, AFSOCICC (AFI 36-3208, para 5.56.2.1); c. Direct that the respondent be discharged from the Air Force with a Genmal dischargc without probation and...
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.
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-19990-1602
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.
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The relevant facts pertaining to her discharge are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied. As of this date, this office has received no response. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD...