RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO: 00-01843
INDEX CODE 100.06
XXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: None
XXXXXXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: Yes
Applicant requests that his reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of “2B”
(Involuntarily separated under AFR 39-10 with a general discharge) be
upgraded to a “1” code. Applicant's submission is at Exhibit A.
The applicant was discharged for misconduct on 21 Oct 94 after 10
months and 7 days of active duty and given a general characterization
of service. The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied
applicant's 27 Mar 95 request for an honorable discharge on 5 Nov 96.
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 documentation provided with this case was sufficient to give the
Board a clear understanding of the issues involved and a personal
appearance, with or without legal counsel, would not have materially
added to that understanding. Therefore, the request for a hearing is
not favorably considered.
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. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Ms. Patricia D. Vestal
and Mr. Joseph A. Roj considered this application on 14 December 2000
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
B. Available Master Personnel Records
C. Advisory Opinions
D. SAF/MIBR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinions
Counsel’s response to the advisory opinions is at Exhibit F. 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. Members of the Board Mr. David C. Van Gasbeck, Mr. Grover L. Dunn, and Mr. E. David Hoard considered this application 10 May 1999 in accordance with the provisions of Air Force Instruction...
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.
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...
Counsel’s response to the advisory opinion is at Exhibit F. 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. Members of the Board Mr. David C. Van Gasbeck, Mr. Grover L. Dunn, and Mr. John E. Pettit considered this application on 9 September 1999 in accordance with the provisions of Air Force Instruction...
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). Members of the Board Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Mr. Patrick R. Wheeler, and Ms. Rita J. Maldonado considered this application on 30 September 1999 in accordance with the provisions of Air Force Instruction 36-2603, and the governing statute, 10, U.S.C.
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.
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 facts and opinions stated in the advisory opinion appear to be based on the evidence of record and have not been persuasively rebutted by the applicant or counsel.
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 and counsel for review and response (Exhibit D). Counsel’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.
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1997-00038
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). 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). Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.