Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2000 | 0002300
Original file (0002300.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                         RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
           AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  00-02300
            INDEX CODES:  100.05, 110.03

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be reinstated and assigned to Scott Air Force Base (AFB)  in  order
to complete 20 years of active duty.

He be awarded  the  Air  Force  Specialty  Code  (AFSC)  of  Dormitory
Manager.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The reasons the applicant believes the  records  to  be  in  error  or
unjust and the evidence submitted in support  of  the  appeal  are  at
Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the
letters  prepared  by  the  appropriate  offices  of  the  Air  Force.
Accordingly, there is no need to recite these facts in this Record  of
Proceedings.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Humanitarian/Exceptional Family Member program (EFMP)  Assignments
Branch, AFPC/DPAPO, reviewed this application and recommended  denial.
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

The  Logistics  Support  and  Security  Forces  Assignments   Section,
AFPC/DPAAD1, reviewed this  application  and  recommended  denial.   A
complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

The United States Air Force (USAF) Classification Branch,  AFPC/DPPAC,
reviewed this application and recommended denial.  A complete copy  of
the evaluation is at Exhibit E.

The Separations Branch,  AFPC/DPPRS,  reviewed  this  application  and
recommended denial.  A complete copy of the evaluation is  at  Exhibit
F.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on  27
Oct 00 for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been
received by this office (Exhibit G).

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing  law
or regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the existence of probable error or injustice.  We took notice  of  the
applicant's complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the  case;
however, we agree with the opinions and  recommendations  of  the  Air
Force  offices  of  primary  responsibility  (OPRs)  and  adopt  their
rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant  has  not
been the victim of an error or injustice.  Therefore, in  the  absence
of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to  recommend
granting the relief sought in this application.
_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The  applicant  be  notified  that  the  evidence  presented  did  not
demonstrate the existence of probable  material  error  or  injustice;
that the application was denied without  a  personal  appearance;  and
that the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission  of
newly  discovered  relevant  evidence   not   considered   with   this
application.
_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 13 Dec 00, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mrs. Barbara A. Westgate, Vice Chair
      Mr. Daniel F. Wenker, Member
      Ms. Marcia J. Bachman, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 9 Aug 00, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPAPO, dated 13 Sep 00.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPAAD1, dated 18 Sep 00.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAC, dated 5 Oct 00.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 11 Oct 00.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 27 Oct 00.




                                   BARBARA A. WESTGATE
                                   Vice Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0002589

    Original file (0002589.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    As of this date, no response has been received by this office. Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPRRS, dated 6 Oct 00. Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 27 Oct 00 BARBARA WESTGATE Vice Chair AFBCMR 00-02589 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that: The pertinent military records of the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2000 | 0001545

    Original file (0001545.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The AFBCMR Medical Consultant, reviewed the application and recommended denial. Applicant has provided no persuasive evidence that her preexisting medical condition was improperly rated and processed at the time of her discharge or that the Air Force should compensate her for an MRI. Exhibit B.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0002733

    Original file (0002733.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    No evidence of reprisal is provided, nor did any reprisal action seem to exist. A complete copy of the DPPPE evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In his initial response to the advisory opinions, the applicant indicated that the original EPR provided was the smoking gun in this case. He believes that he has provided sufficient information to demonstrate that the report was...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2000 | 0001714

    Original file (0001714.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    They further state that the completed agreement clearly states “ADSC under this agreement will be the day following completion of existing ADSC for any medical education and training.” They noted that applicant properly executed the agreement which stated the provisions of the associated active duty obligation and projected staffing in the applicant’s specialty are based on his retainability to 16 May 2003. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9803511

    Original file (9803511.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant did not identify any specific errors in the discharge processing nor provide facts that warrant an upgrade of his discharge he received. We also find insufficient evidence to warrant a recommendation that the discharge be upgraded on the basis of clemency. Exhibit B.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | bc-2006-02152

    Original file (bc-2006-02152.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He is currently serving with the Montana Army National Guard and would like to have his RE code upgraded so he can enlist in the Naval Reserve or even active service. The discharge authority concurred with the recommendations and directed his separation. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Aug 06.

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9801057

    Original file (9801057.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The BCD reflects the applicant’s characterization of active duty service. We also find insufficient evidence to warrant a recommendation that the discharge be upgraded on the basis of clemency. Exhibit B.

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1998-01057

    Original file (BC-1998-01057.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The BCD reflects the applicant’s characterization of active duty service. We also find insufficient evidence to warrant a recommendation that the discharge be upgraded on the basis of clemency. Exhibit B.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2000 | 9800974

    Original file (9800974.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The DAFSC with an effective date of 24 Aug 95, and the aeronautical/flying data on his Officer Selection Brief (OSB) were in error. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Directorate of Assignments, AFPC/DPAIS1, reviewed this application and indicated that the applicant’s DAFSC of “W12B1Y” was consistent with the OPR on file. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9802673

    Original file (9802673.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The airman’s name may stay on the waiting list until 150 days before the airman’s date of separation to await a possible CJR.” _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Directorate of Personnel Program Management, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, reviewed this application and states that the Separation Program Designator (SPD) code “LBK” is used to identify airmen who completed their required active service. Members receiving SPD “LBK” are eligible to receive...