RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-03144
INDEX CODE: 110.00
APPLICANT COUNSEL: NONE
SSN HEARING DESIRED:
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be awarded the United Nations Service Medal for duty he served in
Korea. Applicant’s submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The reasons the applicant believes the records to be in error or
unjust and the evidence submitted in support of the appeal are at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant's military personnel records were destroyed by fire in 1973.
Therefore, the facts surrounding his service in Korea during the
contested time period cannot be verified.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Chief, Recognition Programs, Branch, AFPC/DPPR, reviewed the
application and recommended denial. A complete copy of the evaluation
is attached at Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and provides a
response which is attached at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing
law or regulations.
2. The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of probable error or injustice. After reviewing the
applicant’s submission and his contention that he served in Korea from
1951 to 1952, we note that the bulk of his records were apparently
destroyed by fire. As a result, there is no official documentation to
substantiate that he served with the 49th Communications Squadron in
Korea during the contested time period. Consequently, insufficient
documentary evidence has been presented to warrant awarding him the
United Nations Service Medal. Therefore, in the absence of evidence
to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the
relief sought in this application.
_________________________________________________________________
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 3 May 2001 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Henry Romo, Jr., Panel Chair
Mr. William H. Anderson, Member
Mr. John E. B. Smith, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 23 Nov 00.
Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 9 Mar 01.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 23 Mar 01
Exhibit D. Applicant’s Response, dated 11 Apr 01.
HENRY ROMO, JR.
Panel Chair
In support of his request applicant provided a copy of his 17 Dec 96 OPR; Grand Forks County District Court orders; his criminal record check; statements from his rater and additional rater; and, his Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) decision. Although the Grand Forks County District Court dismissed the charges against him, when the rater signed and referred the OPR on 2 Jan 96, the statement on the OPR was a true and accurate statement (see Exhibit C). We took notice of...
Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice. We therefore agree with the recommendation of the Air Force and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Exhibit B.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: 01-00271 INDEX CODE 111.02 131.09 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) closing 6 Dec 99 be upgraded from an overall rating of “4” to “5.” _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His rater mistakenly compared his...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-03182 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her reenlistment eligibility (RE) and separation codes be changed to allow her to enlist in the Coast Guard. Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A. A complete copy of the AFDRB brief is attached at Exhibit...
_______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The citation for his AFCM (3OLC) was not included in his officer selection record (OSR) that met the CY00A central lieutenant colonel selection board although he had previously verified that it was part of his master personnel record during a Spring 1999 records review at the Air Force Personnel Center. The board was aware of the decoration, however, since the decoration was included on the officer...
The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPP also evaluated this application and recommends denial of the applicant’s request. He states that they are convincing evidence of the prejudicial relationship that existed at the time the EPR in question was accomplished. ___________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of probable material error or...
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. The Special Programs & AFBCMR Manager, HQ AFPC/DPPAES, also evaluated the case and explains why they corrected the applicant’s RE code from “3A” to “2N.” However, if the relief sought is granted, then the author recommends the applicant’s RE code be changed to “3K” (“Reserved for use by HQ AFPC or the AFBCMR when no other RE code applies or is inappropriate [sic].” [The definition for “3K” provided by DPPAES is incorrect because that meaning...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: 01-02507 INDEX CODE 111.02 111.03 111.05 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: Not Indicated _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) closing 12 May 99 be declared void and removed from his records _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His evaluators were...
Although the citation was not present in applicant’s OSR for the board’s review, the selection board had his entire officer selection record (including the OSB reflecting the DMSM, 1OLC) at their disposal during promotion consideration. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 1 Jun 01 for...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-00226 INDEX CODE: 100.05 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be returned to his Primary Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) of Security Forces Specialist (3PO51). As a result, he was approved for retraining into Personnel (3S0X1), an AFSC he did not request. ...