RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-02331
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
Applicant requests the award of the Southwest Asia Service Medal.
Applicant's submission is at Exhibit A.
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). As of this date, no
response has been received by this office.
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 opinion 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. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Mr. William E. Edwards,
and Ms. Brenda L. Romine considered this application on 30 November
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 Opinion
D. AFBCMR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinion
Applicant's submission is at Exhibit A. 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. The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request to change his RE code and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit D). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit E). Applicant's...
Applicant's submission is at Exhibit A. 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. The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request to change his RE code and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit D). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit E). Applicant's...
The appropriate Air Force office (AFPC/DPPPWB) evaluated applicant I s request and provided an initial advisory opinkon 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. Pursuant to the Board's request , AFPC/DPPPWB provided an additional advisory opinion to the Board (Exhibit F).
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). Accordingly, applicant's request is 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.
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) .
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.
The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied applicant's request on 25 May 2000. The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit D). The AFDRB brief and advisory opinion were forwarded to applicant for review and response (Exhibit E).
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). 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.
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 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.