Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2000 | 0000086
Original file (0000086.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  00-00086
            INDEX NUMBER:  111.02

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: NO

It appears that the applicant is requesting that a Performance  Report
be accomplished for the  period  of  Aug  65  –  Aug  66.  Applicant's
submission is at Exhibit A.

On 20 March 2000, applicant’s hair color and home  of  record  address
were administratively corrected on his Report of Separation,  DD  Form
214.  He  was  further  advised  that  AFM  39-10  was  the  governing
directive at the time of his discharge.   He  was  also  furnished  an
Honorable Discharge Certificate, DD Form 256AF.

On 23 March 2000,  applicant  was  advised  that  in  accordance  with
regulations in effect at the time of his discharge, no other pay codes
or remarks were appropriate in his case.

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 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 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 available at the time the application was filed.

Members of the Board, Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Mr. Laurence M. Groner,
and Ms Olga M. Crerar, considered this application on 28 June 2000  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.  Advisory Opinions
D.  SAF/MIBR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinions
E.  Applicant's Response

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2000 | 0000113

    Original file (0000113.doc) Auto-classification: 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). 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.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2000 | 0000063

    Original file (0000063.doc) Auto-classification: 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). 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.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2000 | 0000343

    Original file (0000343.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The appropriate Air Force office 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). Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2000 | 0000173

    Original file (0000173.doc) Auto-classification: 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). Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2000 | 0000243

    Original file (0000243.doc) Auto-classification: 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). Applicant's response to the advisory opinion is at Exhibit E. We note that the Air Force evaluation incorrectly stated that the reasons for the applicant’s discharge included an Article 15 for assault upon another airman, and counselings for...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2000 | 9903226

    Original file (9903226.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied applicant's requests on 25 Feb 00. In accordance with policy, the application was forwarded to this Board for further consideration (Exhibit C). The decision of the AFDRB was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D).

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9900980

    Original file (9900980.doc) Auto-classification: 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). 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.

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9900103

    Original file (9900103.doc) Auto-classification: 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). 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 | 9900429

    Original file (9900429.doc) Auto-classification: 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/counsel 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 in regard to his request that he be issued a DD Form 215 to show...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0002943

    Original file (0002943.doc) Auto-classification: 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, within 30 days (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.