ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-00504
INDEX CODE: 100.00, 128.14
COUNSEL: None
HEARING DESIRED: No
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
She be placed in the position as U.S. Air Force Recruiter and that
she be reimbursed for lost time, wages and rank.
_________________________________________________________________
RESUME OF CASE:
On 30 Sep 99, the Board considered and denied applicant’s request
(Exhibit F).
On 9 Mar 00 (Exhibit G), in an undated letter (Exhibit H), and on
25 Apr 00 (Exhibit I), applicant provided additional documentation
and requests the Board reconsider her application.
_________________________________________________________________
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 have
reviewed the entire application and the additional documentation
submitted. However, we are unpersuaded that a revision of the
earlier determination in this case is warranted. In this respect,
after reviewing the additional documentation, we have found no
evidence that the applicant was improperly considered or denied a
recruiter position. Nor were we persuaded by the evidence provided
that her nonselection for the special duty recruiting tour was based
on the “2” EPR which had been removed from her record or on
erroneous or outdated information. Therefore, in the absence of
substantial evidence that the applicant has been the victim of an
error or injustice, we again find no compelling basis to recommend
granting the relief sought.
_________________________________________________________________
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 14 August 2000, under the provisions of Air
Force Instruction 36-2603:
Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
Mr. Patrick R. Wheeler, Member
Ms. Rita J. Maldonado, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit F. ROP, dated 13 Oct 99, w/atchs
Exhibit G. Letter fr applicant, dated 9 Mar 00, w/atchs.
Exhibit H. Letter fr applicant, undated, w/atchs.
Exhibit I. Letter fr applicant, dated 25 Apr 00.
RICHARD A. PETERSON
Panel Chair
A complete copy of the DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant reviewed the advisory opinions and furnished responses and additional documentary evidence which are attached at Exhibit G. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Skills Management Branch, AFPC/DPPAE, reviewed the...
Lastly, while the applicant contends his commander improperly considered his two prior Article 15s in determining an appropriate punishment, the commander denied this in a written statement to the applicant’s defense counsel. After noting this statement, a majority of the Board finds no reason to believe the commander improperly considered applicant’s two prior Article 15s in determining an appropriate punishment based on applicant’s unofficial use of government e-mail. THE BOARD...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-01985
In support of her request, applicant submits a personal statement copies of the contested reports with her rebuttal statements, and additional documents associated with the issues cited in her contentions. The HQ AFPC/DPPPE evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 16 Aug 02 for review and response. The applicant has not presented...
Lastly, while the applicant contends his commander improperly considered his two prior Article 15s in determining an appropriate punishment, the commander denied this in a written statement to the applicant’s defense counsel. In the opinion of the majority of the Board, the applicant has not provided any evidence showing that the commander abused his discretionary authority in imposing the Article 15 punishment, that the punishment was too harsh, or that the commander considered...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-02079 INDEX CODE: 100.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The separation code of JBK (Completion of Required Active Service) on her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge From Active Duty) be changed to LCC (Reduction in Force <Full Separation Pay>) to match the reason for separation...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1997-01210A
On 3 Mar 98, the Board considered and denied his requests (see Exhibit I). On 7 Apr 99, counsel for the applicant provided additional documentation and requested reconsideration of applicant’s case (see Exhibit J). _________________________________________________________________ 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...
On 3 Mar 98, the Board considered and denied his requests (see Exhibit I). On 7 Apr 99, counsel for the applicant provided additional documentation and requested reconsideration of applicant’s case (see Exhibit J). _________________________________________________________________ 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...
On 21 Apr 80, the Board considered and denied an application pertaining to the applicant, in which he requested that his records be corrected to show that he was discharged because of medical reasons (Exhibit C). Regarding the applicant’s request that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable, we note that in earlier findings, a determination was made that there was insufficient evidence to warrant any corrective action regarding the applicant’s request for upgrade of his...
________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: When he was awarded the National Safety Council’s President’s Medal in Nov 55 by the general officer for whom he worked, he was told that he would receive the Soldier’s Medal (the Airman’s Medal was not established until 1960). ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Awards & Decorations Section, AFPC/DPPPR, reviewed this application and...
Due to the lack of sufficient evidence provided by the applicant, denial is recommended (see Exhibit B). _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In further support of his request, applicant provided a copy of his SGLV Form 8286 (see Exhibit D). Documents provided indicate that on 20 Mar 97, the applicant completed the appropriate paperwork electing SGLI coverage in the amount of $50,000.