Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0002742
Original file (0002742.doc) Auto-classification: Denied



                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  00-02742
            INDEX NUMBER:  131.01

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

Applicant requests  he  be  considered  for  promotion  by  a  Special
Selection Board (SSB) for the FY00 Reserve Lieutenant Colonel Position
Vacancy Selection Board (Jun 99) with the  Meritorious  Service  Medal
(MSM) 3OLC covering the period 20 Oct 97 –     03 Feb 99  included  in
his record.  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.

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 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 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.  Thomas  S.  Markiewicz,  Ms.  Carolyn  J.
Watkins, and Mr. E. David Hoard, considered  this  application  on  13
February  2001  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  Air   Force
Instruction 36-2603 and the governing statute, 10 U.S.C. 1552.




      THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ

      Vice Chair


Exhibits:
A.  Applicant's DD Form 149, w/atchs
B.  Available Master Personnel Records
C.  Advisory Opinion
D.  SAF/MIBR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinion
E.  Applicant's Response

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9900755

    Original file (9900755.doc) Auto-classification: 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). 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.

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9901473

    Original file (9901473.doc) Auto-classification: 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 and counsel 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 application was filed.

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9900745

    Original file (9900745.doc) Auto-classification: 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). The Board staff is directed to inform applicant of this decision.

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9901359

    Original file (9901359.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    As noted by the Air Staff, in their advisory opinion of 22 Jun 99 (Exhibit C), applicant’s request for the DFC for service during Operation Desert Storm had already been considered by Headquarters ACC (as reflected by the letter from AFPC/DPPP, dated 27 Oct 97), on two occasions and denied both times. The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). Applicant's response to the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9900631

    Original file (9900631.doc) Auto-classification: 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). Applicant’s responses to the advisory opinion are 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.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 9903072

    Original file (9903072.doc) Auto-classification: 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 and counsel for review and response (Exhibit D). Counsel’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.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2000 | 9900921

    Original file (9900921.doc) Auto-classification: 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). 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.

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9900575

    Original file (9900575.doc) Auto-classification: 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). 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.

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9901256

    Original file (9901256.doc) Auto-classification: 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). 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.

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9900691

    Original file (9900691.doc) Auto-classification: 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.