THIRD ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 93-01958
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
RESUME OF CASE:
On 20 October 1998, the Board reconsidered applicant’s request that he be
returned to active duty in the grade of master sergeant, with service
credit for the period following his discharge up to his return to active
duty; his court-martial conviction be removed from his records; and he be
given restitution of all pay and benefits he forfeited. The Board was not
persuaded that his medical discharge was either improper or unjust
(Exhibits J-W).
In letters to Senators Nickles and Inhofe, the applicant provided
additional evidence and requests that the Board reconsider his application
(Exhibits X-CC).
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of probable error or injustice. After thoroughly reviewing the
additional documentation submitted with this request for reconsideration,
we are of the opinion that applicant has failed to provide sufficient
evidence to warrant a change in his records. The statements from the
civilian orthopedic surgeon and civilian psychiatrist are duly noted;
however, they do not persuade us that at the time of his discharge, the
diagnosis of his condition was in error or unjust. While the applicant may
believe he is physically fit for military service at this time, we find
insufficient evidence to substantiate that he was fit for continued
military service at the time of his discharge. Therefore, in the absence of
evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting
the requested relief.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified that the additional 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 23 March 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. David C. Van Gasbeck, Panel Chair
Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Member
Mr. Jackson A. Hauslein, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibits J - W. 2nd Addendum to Record of Proceedings,
dated 4 Mar 99, w/atchs.
Exhibit X. Letter, Sens Nickles & Inhofe, w/atchs.
Exhibit Y. Letter, Applicant, dated 15 May 00, w/atchs.
Exhibit Z. Letter, Sen Nickles, dated 13 Jun 00, w/atch.
Exhibit AA. Letter, Sen Inhofe, dated 26 Jun 00, w/atchs.
Exhibit BB. Letter, Sen Nickles, dated 11 Jul 00, w/atchs.
Exhibit CC. Letter, Sen Nickles, dated 30 Aug 00, w/atchs.
DAVID C. VAN GASBECK
Panel Chair
The flying status section of the applicant’s 21 Aug 00 Officer Pre- selection Brief (OPB) for the CY00A board reflected “CONDL HDIP NON RATED-ACT AIRCREW MEMBER” (Conditional Hazardous Duty Incentive Pay, Non-rated, Active Aircrew Member). A copy of the letter and Instruction Sheet is provided at Exhibit C. The applicant was considered but not selected for promotion by the CY00A board, which convened on 28 Nov 00. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC2003-02377A4th
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: AFPC/DPPD recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that the applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to indicate any error or injustice occurred during his processing through the Disability Evaluation System (DES), or that the RE code is incorrect. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: Complete copies of the...
A complete copy of the Record of Proceedings is attached at Exhibit F. In a letter, dated 1 December 1997, the State of Department of Veterans Affairs, provided additional documentation and requested reconsideration of the applicant’s request for award of the PH (Exhibit G). A complete copy of the Record of Proceedings is attached at Exhibit F. In a letter, dated 25 June 1997, the State of of Veterans Affairs, requested reconsideration request for award of the PH (Exhibit G). ' Examiner's...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00622
COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: Yes _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be granted a waiver of Community College of the Air Force (CCAF) Associate in Applied Science (AAS) degree requirements and be awarded a degree in Airport Resource Management. CCAF contends that, because the applicant was unable or unwilling to satisfy all CCAF requirements for the AAS degree, he has requested that CCAF lower its standards and award him a degree. ...
On 28 Apr 98, the applicant provided additional evidence and requested that the Board reconsider her application (Exhibit F) . The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The discharge complies with directives in effect at the time of her discharge.
___________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The 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: HQ AFPC/DPPTR reviewed this application and recommended denial. In Jul 01, former spouse coverage was established...
ARPC forwarded a letter to the applicant informing him that his RCSBP election could not be processed because he missed the 90-day time limit required by law. The applicant states that he completed his package and forwarded it to ARPC on 19 Jun 00 and that it was returned ripped and damaged by the post office. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 6 February 2001 under the...
The applicant’s request under AFI 36-2401 to have the contested EPR removed from his records was denied by the Evaluation Reports Appeals Board (ERAB). The AFPC/DPPPWB evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPPEP recommends the application be denied. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that the contested report is an inaccurate assessment of his performance during the contested rating period.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-01352 INDEX CODE: 102.08 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded 24 months constructive service credit (CSC) at the time of his commission as a Reserve officer on 14 April 1995. Based on the evidence provided, they recommend denial of applicant's request. BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The...
They stated that Public Law (PL) 92-425, which established the SBP, required the spouse to be notified when a member, who retired on or after 21 Sep 72, declined or elected less than maximum coverage. However, both requirements applied only to the spouse married to the member at the time of retirement. ___________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered this application AFBCMR Docket Number 01-02858 in Executive Session on 23...