RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO.: 00-00864
INDEX CODE: 108.01, 120.01
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
The applicant requests her date of retirement be extended from 30 Jun 99 to
13 Jul 99 and she be placed on convalescent leave status for 40 days
beginning 21 Jun 99. The applicant's submission is at Exhibit A.
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). As of this date, this office has
received no response.
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. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Mr.
Patricia D. Vestal, considered this application on 14 Dec 00, 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 Opinions
D. AFBCMR Letter 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, within 30 days (Exhibit D). 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...
As noted by the Air Staff, in their advisory opinion of 22 Jun 99 (Exhibit C), applicant’s request for the DFC for service during Operation Desert Storm had already been considered by Headquarters ACC (as reflected by the letter from AFPC/DPPP, dated 27 Oct 97), on two occasions and denied both times. The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). Applicant's response to the...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-01344 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided an investigative report which is attached at Exhibit C. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Military Personnel Management Specialist, AFPC/DPPRS,...
The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied applicant's request on 10 Jun 99. 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 | BC-1999-01635
The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied applicant's request on 10 Jun 99. 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).
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.
A complete copy of the advisory is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Awards and Decorations Section, HQ AFPC/DPPPR, reviewed the application for award of the MSM for the period of 2 Jul 97 – 3 Jul 99. It is the supervisor’s responsibility to recommend or not recommend for a decoration upon Permanent Change of Station (PCS). Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-01016 INDEX NUMBER: 107.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS: (1) Relief from the provisions of the “pay cap” of 5 USC 5532(c) as applied to his compensation; or, if not granted or if not within the jurisdiction of the Board, (2) An option to relinquish his retirement from the Air Force and to elect either (a) the Voluntary Separation Incentive (VSI) or (b) the...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00849 INDEX CODE: 111.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Education/Training Report (TR), rendered for the period 2 Jun 92 through 27 Sep 93, be replaced with the revised TR provided, which include squadron commander comments on his performance as a flight commander. ++ Top report at the...
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.