RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO: 99-01363
INDEX NUMBER: A59
COUNSEL: None
HEARING DESIRED: No
Applicant requests that his undesirable discharge be upgraded. 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). Additionally, the AFBCMR requested that
he provide information to the Board pertaining to his activities since
leaving the service (Exhibit E). As of this date, no response has been
received by this office.
A check of Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) files revealed no negative
information (Exhibit F).
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
reasonably available at the time the application was filed.
Members of the Board, Mr. Charles E. Bennett, Ms. Kathy L. Boockholdt, and
Mr. Michael V. Barbino considered this application on 6 Jan 2000, in
accordance with the provisions of Air Force Instruction 36-2603, and the
governing statute, 10 U.S.C. 1552.
CHARLES E. BENNETT
Panel Chair
Exhibits:
A. Applicant's DD Form 149, dated 1 Jun 99, w/atchs
B. Available Master Personnel Records
C. Advisory Opinion
D. SAF/MIBR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinion
E. AFBCMR Ltr, dated 2 Nov 99
F. FBI Report
The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied applicant's request on 3 September 1999. The decision of the AFDRB was 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 (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 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 opinions appear to be based on the evidence of record and have not been rebutted by applicant.
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 and counsel for review and response (Exhibit D). Applicant'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.
On 24 May 1988, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) .considered and denied applicant's request for upgrade of his bad conduct discharge to honorable. A copy of AFDRB Hearing Record is attached at Exhibit C. On 20 March 1998, the AFBCMR invited the' applicant to submit information pertaining to his activities since leaving the service (Exhibit D). careful consideration of .applicant's request and the available evidence of record, we find insufficient evidence of error or injustice...
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request concerning the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal 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...
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). 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 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 opinions appear to be based on the evidence of record and have not been rebutted by applicant.
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 (Exhibit D). The applicant was approved for retraining into AFSC lClXl and required 30 months retainability after class graduation date.