RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 95-03831
INDEX CODE: 110.0
COUNSEL:
HEARING DESIRED: NO
________________________________________________________________
RESUME OF CASE
On 26 August 1996, the Board considered applicant's 21 December 1995
application requesting that his honorable discharge and retirement
from the Reserve component be changed to a medical retirement. A
complete copy of the Record of Proceedings is attached at Exhibit E.
In a letter from the counsel, dated 8 June 2000, additional
documentation is submitted in support of the applicant. Counsel
requests that the case be reconsidered. (Exhibit F)
________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of probable error or injustice. After reviewing the
previous documentation and noting the additional documentation
submitted, we again are not convinced that the applicant’s requests
should be granted. As stated, the applicant’s records were reviewed
and verified that he was never diagnosed with nor had any condition
(psychiatric or otherwise) while on active duty which warranted
presentation to a Medical Evaluation Board and possible referral to a
Physical Evaluation Board (PEB). His case was properly evaluated,
appropriately rated and received full consideration under the
provisions of AFI 36-3212. 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 applicant 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 5 October 2000, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Robert D. Stuart, Panel Chair
Mr. Patrick R. Wheeler, Member
Mr. Jackson A. Hauslein, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit E. ROP, dated 27 Aug 96 w/atchs.
Exhibit F Counsel’s letter, dated 8 Jun 00,
w/atchs.
ROBERT D. STUART
Panel Chair
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 24 May 1999, the Board reconsidered and denied applicant’s request that his discharge be declared void and that he receive retroactive pay, points and sufficient years of service to qualify for a reserve retirement. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant’s counsel states that the applicant did not confuse...
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE MATTER OF: 067 2 9 I998 DOCKET NUMBER: 9 8 - 0 0 9 7 6 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REO UESTS THAT: His discharge be characterized as honorable and the narrative reason for his separation be changed. I+ AIR FO RCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Medical Consultant, AFBCMR, reviewed this application and states that in order to correct an injustice of improperly labeling the applicant's disorder, the...
A completely different board reviewed the applicant's OSR for each board. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Counsel reviewed the Air Force evaluations and provides his response which is attached at Exhibit L. THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. 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...
Axis 11: Personality Disorder Not Otherwise Specified. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Military Personnel Mgmt Spec, AFPC/DPPRS, reviewed this application and states this case has been reviewed for separation processing and there are no errors or irregularities causing an injustice to the applicant. This evaluation in July 1996 resulted in a diagnosis of Personality Disorder, Not Otherwise Specified as noted in a letter to his commander signed by a...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1994-02626A
In an application, dated 28 Apr 98, the applicant provided additional information and requested the above corrections to his record (Exhibit F). A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit G. The Chief, Evaluation Programs Branch, AFPC/DPPPE, reviewed this application and indicated that the PRF is the responsibility of the senior rater and unless proven otherwise, they consider it to be an accurate reflection of the officer’s record of performance. ...
In an application, dated 28 Apr 98, the applicant provided additional information and requested the above corrections to his record (Exhibit F). A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit G. The Chief, Evaluation Programs Branch, AFPC/DPPPE, reviewed this application and indicated that the PRF is the responsibility of the senior rater and unless proven otherwise, they consider it to be an accurate reflection of the officer’s record of performance. ...
In support of his appeal he submits letters from the rater and the rater's rater. The applicant has not provided a statement from the new rater's rater (reaccomplished EPR) . A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on 20 July 1998 for review and response within 30 days.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03982
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-03982 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general, under honorable conditions, discharge be upgraded to honorable. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice. Therefore, we agree with the opinion and...
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). Background: During our review we were unable to locate documents that confirmed review his personal file m e r f o r m e d TDYs while assigned overseas.
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). 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 should also be informed that this decision is final and will only be reconsidered upon the presentation of new relevant evidence which was not...