RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-01266
INDEX CODE: 100.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
Applicant requests that his commander’s denial of his reenlistment
be overturned and that he be allowed to reenlist in the Air Force
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 (Exhibit D). As
of this date, no response has been received by this office.
After careful consideration of applicant's request and the limited
documentation available for our review, we are unable to determine
whether or not the applicant was improperly denied reenlistment.
Therefore, based upon the presumption of regularity in the conduct
of governmental affairs and without evidence to the contrary, we
must assume that the commander’s decision to deny him reenlistment
was proper and in compliance with appropriate directives. In view
of the foregoing, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we
find no basis to disturb the existing record.
However, should the applicant provide additional documentation, the
Board would be willing to reconsider his request. This
documentation should include, but is not limited to, copies of the
applicant’s training records, training certificates, his unit
training records, letters of support from individuals familiar with
the circumstances surrounding his denial of reenlistment,
performance evaluations, and letters of appreciation and/or awards
received from his unit.
The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been
shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will
materially add to our understanding of the issues involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.
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. Robert W. Zook, Ms. Brenda L. Romine, and
Ms. Marcia J. Bachman considered this application on 1 May 2001 in
accordance with the provisions of Air Force Instruction 36-2603, and
the governing statute, 10, U.S.C. 1552.
ROBERT W. ZOOK
Panel Chair
Exhibits:
A. Applicant's DD Form 149
B. Available Master Personnel Records
C. Advisory Opinion
D. AFBCMR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinion
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO: 98-03455 INDEX CODE: 100.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES Applicant requests that his reenlistment eligibility be changed from “ineligible” to “eligible” on his NGB Form 22, Report of Separation and Record of Service. 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...
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 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). Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.
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 within 30 days (Exhibit D). Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. Members of the Board Mr. Robert W. Zook, Mr. Robert S. Boyd and Mr. Edward C. Koenig, III, considered this application on 24 April 2001, in accordance with the provisions of Air Force Instruction 36-2603 and the governing statute, 10 U.S.C.
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 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. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request in regard to payment of 17 days of lump sum leave 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 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...
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.
In June 96, the Florida Air National Guard Selective Retention Review Board (SRRB or Retention Board) decided to terminate his Air National Guard military membership, effective 31 Dec 96. The Board recognizes the applicant’s contributions to the Air National Guard, however, we find no evidence to support a finding that the decision to non-retain the applicant was not in accordance with the guidelines of the Selective Retention Program. The following members of the Board considered this...