RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO.: 00-02343
INDEX CODE: 110.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
The applicant requests his under other than honorable conditions discharge
on 12 February 1989 under the provisions of ANGR 39-10 be upgraded to
honorable and the narrative "Unsatisfactory Participation" be removed. The
applicant's submission is at Exhibit A.
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and
provided the 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). As of this date, this office has
received no response.
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
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 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. Patrick R. Wheeler, Ms. Barbara J. White-Olson and
Mr. Albert F. Lowas, Jr., considered this application on 22 march 2001, in
accordance with the provisions of Air Force Instruction 36-2603 and the
governing statute, 10 U.S.C. 1552.
PATRICK R. WHEELER
Panel Chair
Exhibits:
A. Applicant's DD Form 149
B. Available Master Personnel Records
C. Advisory Opinions
D. AFBCMR Letter Forwarding Advisory Opinions
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). 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. Accordingly, applicant's request is denied.
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). 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). Accordingly, applicant's request is denied.
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The 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. PATRICK R. WHEELER Panel Chair Exhibits: 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). Accordingly, applicant's request is denied.
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). Accordingly, applicant's request is denied.
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). 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). 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). 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.