RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-01046
INDEX NUMBER: 135.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
Applicant requests that he be transferred to the Retired Reserve.
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, within 30 days
(Exhibit D). The applicant’s response to the advisory opinion is
at Exhibit E.
Since applicant raised another issue in his response, the AFBCMR
staff requested an additional advisory opinion to address his
request for a line of duty (LOD) determination for hearing loss
(Exhibit F).
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated the request and provided
an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be
denied (Exhibit G). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the
applicant for review and response, within 30 days (Exhibit H). The
applicant’s response to the advisory opinion is at Exhibit I.
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 available at the time the application was
filed.
Members of the Board, Mr. Gregory H. Petkoff, Ms. Barbara J. White-
Olson, and Mr. George Franklin, considered this application on
11 January 2001, in accordance with the provisions of Air Force
Instruction 36-2603 and the governing statute, 10 U.S.C. 1552.
GREGORY H. PETKOFF
Panel Chair
Exhibits:
A. Applicant's DD Form 149, dtd 11 Apr 2000, w/atchs
B. Available Master Personnel Records
C. Ltr, ARPC/DPP, dtd 6 Jul 2000
D. Ltr ,SAF/MIBR, dtd 21 Jul 2000
E. Applicant's Response, dtd 2 Aug 2000
F. Ltrs, AFBCMR, dtd 15 Sep 2000
G. Ltr, AFPC/JA, dtd 25 Oct 2000
H. Ltr, SAF/MIBR, 10 Nov 2000
I. Applicant's Response, dtd 2 Dec 2000, w/atchs
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 report was forwarded to the applicant for review and response, within 30 days (Exhibit F).
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request concerning his RE code 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). 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...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-01450 INDEX NUMBER: 100.03; 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The narrative reason for his separation, and his reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 2C be changed to allow him to enlist in the Air National Guard (ANG) or Air Force Reserve. Their evaluation is at Exhibit E. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: Copies of the Air Force evaluations...
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 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, within 30 days (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.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO: 99-03263 INDEX NUMBER: A39; 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. The report was forwarded to the applicant for review and response, within 30 days (Exhibit F). ...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Separations Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPRS reviewed this application and recommended the discharge be upgraded to an under honorable conditions (general) discharge if a check of the FBI files proves negative. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show...
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 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 and counsel 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 facts and opinions stated in the advisory opinion appear to be based on the evidence of record and have not been rebutted by applicant.