RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-03128
INDEX CODES: 111.02, 126.03
126.04
COUNSEL: ROBERT ESTRADA
HEARING DESIRED: NO
Applicant requests that the Article 15 imposed on 2 Jan 97 be set
aside; the Letter of Reprimand, dated 21 Apr 98, and Letter of
Counseling, dated 2 Feb 98, and Unfavorable Information File (UIF) be
removed from his records; and his Officer Performance Reports (OPRs)
closing 24 Apr 97 and 24 Apr 98 be amended in Section V to reflect
“Meets Standards.” Applicant's submission is at Exhibit A.
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's requests 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). 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. The facts and opinions stated
in the advisory opinions appear to be based on the evidence of record
and have not been adequately 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 reasonably available at the time the application was
filed.
Members of the Board Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Mr. John E. Pettit, and
Mr. Steven A. Shaw considered this application on 17 Feb 00 in
accordance with the provisions of Air Force Instruction 36-2603 and
the governing statute, 10 U.S.C. 1552.
THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
Panel Chair
Exhibits:
A. Applicant's DD Form 149
B. Available Master Personnel Records
C. Advisory Opinions
D. SAF/MIBR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinions
E. Counsel’s Response
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE AIR EDUCATION AND TRAINING COMMAND MEMORANDUM FOR Amn m, F- FROM: 334 TRSlCCQ SUBJECT: Notification Memorandum f D P7--&--/7 26-Feb-9 7 .- 1 I, I am recommending your discharge from the United States Air Force for Unsatisfactory Duty Performance. (Atch 1, Appendix 6 ) c. On 24 Feb 97, you made a written statement requesting to be discharged from the Air Force. (Atch I, Appendix F) g. On 22 Nov 96, you failed Weather Equipment measurement scoring 63%,...
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO: 98-00114 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES AU9 r-1 898 Applicant requests that his Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be deleted. The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). Accordingly, applicant's request is denied.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00849 INDEX CODE: 111.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Education/Training Report (TR), rendered for the period 2 Jun 92 through 27 Sep 93, be replaced with the revised TR provided, which include squadron commander comments on his performance as a flight commander. ++ Top report at the...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2000.03350
3A031 – Information Management Apprentice, 9 mos On 14 Aug 99, he was honorably discharged, under the provisions of AFI 36-3208 (Completion of Required Active Service), and was issued an RE code of 4G (No AFSC awarded that is commensurate with grade). A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant contends that he did not realize he had been reassigned to AFSC 3A031,...
f. Applicant is not eligible for the Air Force Good Conduct Medal because there is a letter of denial in his records, a letter denying him reenlistment because of his conduct, and he had an Un- favorable Information File (UIF). DEPARTMENT OF THE A I R FORCE HEADQUARTERS AIR FORCE PERSONNEL CENTER RANDOLPH AIR PORCE BASE TEXAS HQ AFPCDPPPRA 550 C Street West Ste 12 Randolph AFB TX 78150-4714 3 March 1998 This is in partial response to your 13 Feb 98 Application for Correction of Military...
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Appeals and SSB Branch, AFPC/DPPPA, reviewed the application and stated that OPRs on active duty officers are due for file at HQ AFPC no later than 60 days after closeout date. t RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD: A majority of the panel finds insufficient evidence 'of error or injustice and recommends the application be denied. Air Force Review Boards Agency DEPARTMENT OF THE A I R FORCE HEADQUARTERS AIR FORCE P E R S O N N...
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). 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 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, within 30 days (Exhibit D). The 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01862
________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The decision by the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) to deny his request to upgrade his discharge to honorable was unjust. A legal review of the discharge case file by the staff judge advocate found the file legally sufficient and recommended the applicant be discharged with a general discharge without the opportunity for probation and rehabilitation. We took notice of the applicant's complete...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1996-03600
In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a detailed personal statement and other documents associated with the matter under review, including top promote materials, board member observations, and documentary evidence pertaining to illegal selection boards. Applicant's complete response and additional documentary evidence are at Exhibit G. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Pursuant to the Board's request, the Evaluation...