RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO.: 01-01078
INDEX CODE: 110.03
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
The applicant requests his records be corrected to reflect that he
reenlisted in the grade of E-5 and that he receive all back pay and
allowances; or, in the alternative, he be allowed to retrain into a new
AFSC and return the grade of E-5. The 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 B). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for
review and response (Exhibit C). As of this date, this office has received
no response.
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
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 available at the time the application was filed.
Members of the Board Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Mr. Michael V. Barbino, and
Mr. William H. Anderson, considered this application on 24 Jul 01, in
accordance with the provisions of Air Force Instruction 36-2603 and the
governing statute, 10 U.S.C. 1552.
RICHARD A. PETERSON
Panel Chair
Exhibits:
A. Applicant's DD Form 149, w/atchs
B. Advisory Opinion, w/atch
C. AFBCMR Letter Forwarding Advisory Opinion
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit B). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit C). 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 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.
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.
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.
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). 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 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 facts and opinions stated in the advisory opinion appear to be based on the evidence of record and have not been rebutted by applicant.
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). Accordingly, applicant's request is 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 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. RICHARD A. PETERSON Panel Chair Exhibits: A.
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). The applicant’s response is attached 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.
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.