ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-02830
INDEX NUMBER: 128.10; 104.00
XXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: Gary R. Myers
XXX-XX-XXXX HEARING DESIRED: Yes
____________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His disenrollment from the Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps
(AFROTC) be expunged from his record.
He be commissioned a second lieutenant in the Air Force and placed in
the Reserve.
Recoupment of his scholarship monies be terminated and all monies he has
already paid be returned to him.
___________________________________________________________________
RESUME OF CASE:
On 20 February 2001, the AFBCMR considered and denied the applicant’s
requests (Exhibits A through E).
A copy of the Air Force advisories were mailed to the applicant’s
counsel on 5 Jan 01 for review and comment within 30 days. Counsel’s
response was received after the 30-day timeframe and after the
applicant’s case had been considered by the Board (Exhibit F).
____________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
After careful consideration of counsel’s rebuttal, we found no evidence
that responsible officials applied inappropriate standards in effecting
the applicant’s disenrollment, that pertinent regulations were violated
or that the applicant was not afforded all the rights to which entitled
at the time of his disenrollment. In the absence of evidence to the
contrary, we find no basis to change our earlier decision.
____________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate
the existence of probable material error or injustice; that the
application was denied without a personal appearance; and that the
application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of newly
discovered relevant evidence not considered with this application.
___________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered this application in
Executive Session on 15 March 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
Mr. Steven A. Shaw, Member
Mr. Lawrence R. Leehy, Member
The following additional documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit F. Memorandum, Applicant’s Counsel, dated 23 Feb 01.
RICHARD A. PETERSON
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-1999-00780B
SECOND ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-1999-00780 INDEX CODE: 104.00 COUNSEL: Mr. Fred L. Bauer HEARING DESIRED: Yes _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be reinstated to the United States Air Force Academy (USAFA). A Wing Honor Board (WHB) found the applicant in violation of the USAF Academy Honor Code on the allegation that he had obtained...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03782
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-03782 INDEX CODE: 137.03 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Corrective action be taken to allow him to void his request to disenroll from the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) made under the provisions of Public Law (PL) 105-85 and permit him to reinstate SBP coverage for his wife. ...
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: ARPC/DPA recommends the application be denied. The ARPC/DPA evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01357
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His discharge records should indicate the rank of second lieutenant. After reviewing the applicant’s records, there is no indication he was ever commissioned as an officer in either the Air Force or the Air Force Reserves. Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02568
___________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 18 December 1946, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army at the age of 18 in the grade of private for a period of three years. After reviewing the evidence of record, the Board is not persuaded that the applicant has been the victim of an error or injustice. The applicant asserts that he is owned $80 backpay due him at the time of his discharge.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2001-00612-2A
For an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s separation, and, the rationale for the earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings at Exhibit E. On 26 February 2004, the applicant submitted a request for reconsideration, through the American Legion, contending that an Unemployment Commission Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) determined that the government did not have adequate evidence to discharge him from the Air Force Reserve and he was granted...
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 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. RICHARD A. PETERSON Panel Chair Exhibits: A.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2001-00122
On 20 May 97, the applicant was advised in writing of HQ AFROTC’s decision, and notified that he would be required to complete the PFT, 1.5 mile run, and meet weight and body fat standards for commissioning. In regards to the applicant’s allegation that the debt of $77,000 is disproportionate, he states that maintaining body fat standards is a training requirement specified in the AFROTC contract. Counsel also asserts that AFOATS/JA glosses over the fact that when the applicant was weighed...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02599
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He completed the entire 12-week Officer Training School (OTS) program and successfully passed all graded measures and evaluations. On 2 Dec 02, the applicant was notified by his flight commander he was initiating disenrollment proceedings against him for demonstrating lack of adaptability. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-04109
Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPAE states that the Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of 2C, “Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge, or entry level separation without characterization of service” is correct. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did...