Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0102301
Original file (0102301.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                 DOCKET NO:  01-02301
                             INDEX CODE:  137.00, 137.01

      APPLICANT                   COUNSEL:  DAV

                                  HEARING DESIRED:  NO


The applicant is the widow of a former service  member,  who  requests
corrective action that would reflect she is  entitled  to  an  annuity
under the  Survivor  Benefit  Plan  (SBP)  program.   The  applicant's
complete submission, with attachments, 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).   Applicant’s  response
to the advisory opinion, with attachments, 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 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 reasonably available at the  time  the  application  was
filed.

Members of the Board Mr. David C. Van Gasbeck, Mr.  Michael J.  Novel,
and Ms. Patricia D. Vestal considered this application on 20  November
2001 in accordance with the provisions of Air  Force  Instruction  36-
2603, and the governing statute, 10, U.S.C. 1552.




                                                     DAVID   C.    VAN
GASBECK
                                             Panel Chair

Exhibits:

A.  Applicant's DD Form 149, with attachments
B.  Available Master Personnel Records

C.  Advisory Opinion

D.  SAF/MIBR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinion
E.  Applicant’s Response, with attachments

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9802702

    Original file (9802702.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant's submission is at Exhibit A. Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided an investigative report which is attached at Exhibit C. The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request to change his RE code and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit D). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit E). Applicant's...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1998 | 9802702

    Original file (9802702.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant's submission is at Exhibit A. Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided an investigative report which is attached at Exhibit C. The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request to change his RE code and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit D). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit E). Applicant's...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9802415

    Original file (9802415.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Counsel’s response to the advisory opinions is at Exhibit F. 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. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. Members of the Board Mr. David C. Van Gasbeck, Mr. Grover L. Dunn, and Mr. E. David Hoard considered this application 10 May 1999 in accordance with the provisions of Air Force Instruction...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0101387

    Original file (0101387.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, within 30 days (Exhibit D). Applicant’s response to the advisory opinion, with attachment, 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9900111

    Original file (9900111.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 | 9900208

    Original file (9900208.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 | 9802588

    Original file (9802588.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 | 9802526

    Original file (9802526.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/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 | CY1999 | 9803458

    Original file (9803458.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). Accordingly, applicant's request is denied.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2000 | 9901370

    Original file (9901370.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 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.