Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0101796
Original file (0101796.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  01-01796
            INDEX CODE:  128.00, 128.14

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

Applicant requests that his record be changed to show  that  he  opted
for the Voluntary Separation Incentive (VSI) program at  the  time  of
his separation from active duty  instead  of  the  Special  Separation
Benefits (SSB) Program.  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 C).  The advisory  opinion  was  forwarded  to  the
applicant for review and response (Exhibit D).  As of  this  date,  no
response has been received by this office.

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, Ms. Olga M. Crerar,  and
Mr. Richard M. McCormick considered  this  application  on  16 October
2001 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
B.  Available Master Personnel Records
C.  Advisory Opinion
D.  AFBCMR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinion

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0102090

    Original file (0102090.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 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 | CY2001 | 0101770

    Original file (0101770.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). 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.

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9803314

    Original file (9803314.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/counsel for review and response (Exhibit D). The facts and opinions stated in the advisory opinions appear to be based on the evidence of record and have not been rebutted by applicant/counsel.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0102011

    Original file (0102011.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). 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 | CY2000 | 0000113

    Original file (0000113.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 | CY2000 | 0000063

    Original file (0000063.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 | CY2000 | 0000243

    Original file (0000243.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. We note that the Air Force evaluation incorrectly stated that the reasons for the applicant’s discharge included an Article 15 for assault upon another airman, and counselings for...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2000 | 0000086

    Original file (0000086.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    He was further advised that AFM 39-10 was the governing directive at the time of his discharge. The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). Applicant's response to the advisory opinions 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 | BC-1998-00561

    Original file (BC-1998-00561.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). 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 | 9800561

    Original file (9800561.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). 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.