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
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...
_________________________________________________________________ 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.
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...
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...
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
_________________________________________________________________ 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.
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
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.
_________________________________________________________________ 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. ...
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...