RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00173
INDEX NUMBER: 131.00
XXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: None
XXX-XX-XXXX HEARING DESIRED: No
_______________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His records be corrected to show that he was commissioned as a first
lieutenant vice second lieutenant upon his entry into the Air Force.
_______________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was told by his recruiter that he had enough experience to be
commissioned as a first lieutenant.
Based on the guidance contained in AFI 36-2005, he has enough work
experience to be commissioned a first lieutenant.
In support of his appeal, the applicant submitted copies of his Pay
stubs to show the number of hours he has worked as a Registered Nurse
compared to the number of hours the Air Force requires for him to be
commissioned as a first lieutenant. He also provides a copy of the
letter advising him that he would be commissioned as a first
lieutenant.
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_______________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant entered active duty on 16 April 2001 in the grade of
second lieutenant as a Nurse. The remaining relevant facts pertaining
to this case are contained in the evaluation done by the appropriate
office of the Air Force found at Exhibit C.
_______________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPMAF2 recommends denial of the applicant’s request. In
accordance with AFI 36-2005, an individual achieves full time
professional experience by being employed 40 hours per week in one or
more places. Individuals employed 32-39 hours per week and considered
full time employees must submit a letter from their employer verifying
they are full time employees. The applicant did not provide this
letter.
The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_______________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant responds in his rebuttal that the regulation used to
determine the grade he was commissioned in the Air Force adheres to a
very narrow definition. He points out his experience far exceeds that
of a second lieutenant. He states that he will be held to a higher
standard than other second lieutenant nurses because they are not
certified, giving him the responsibility without the commensurate rank.
He further provides a letter of support from his present supervisor.
The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.
_______________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or
regulations.
2. The application was timely filed.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of probable error or injustice. Based on the documentation
submitted by the applicant, it does appear that he is a qualified and
experienced nurse. However, the majority of the Board noted the
applicant failed to provide the letter required by Air Force Instruction
36-2005, Table 2.5, Rule 45 (Note 14) from his former employer verifying
that he was a full time employee. Regardless of the merits of this
policy, it is a mandatory requirement that anyone in a similar
circumstance must meet. While it is regrettable that the applicant was
initially misinformed regarding the constructive service credit he would
receive, he was fully informed when he voluntarily entered active duty
as a second lieutenant. Should the applicant provide the letter
required by AFI 36-2005, the Board will reconsider his case. Therefore,
in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the majority of the Board
finds no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in
this application.
_______________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:
A majority of the Board finds insufficient evidence of error or
injustice and recommends the application be denied.
_______________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered Docket Number 02-00173 in
Executive Session on 19 March 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Frederick R. Beaman, III, Panel Chair
Mr. Clarence D. Long, III, Member
Ms. Carolyn B. Willis, Member
By a majority vote, the Board voted to deny applicant’s request. Ms.
Willis voted to grant the applicant’s requests but did not desire to
submit a minority report. The following documentary evidence was
considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 16 Jan 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPMAF2, dated 31 Jan 02.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 15 Feb 02.
Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 13 Mar 02, w/atchs.
FREDERICK R. BEAMAN, III
Panel Chair
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD
FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)
SUBJECT: AFBCMR Application of XXXXXXXXX, XXX-XX-XXXX
I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the
recommendation of the Board members. A majority found that applicant
had not provided sufficient evidence of error or injustice and
recommended the case be denied. I concur with that finding and their
conclusion that relief is not warranted. Accordingly, I accept their
recommendation that the application be denied.
Please advise the applicant accordingly.
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
In support of her appeal, the applicant provided a letter from the Houston Medical Center, dated 19 October 1998, and an Employee Payroll History from 1 August 1997 through 31 December 1998. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPMAF2, dated 17 January 2002, w/atchs. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 January 2002.
A Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) convened on 7 December 2000, and recommended the applicant be referred to an Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) based on the diagnosis of dysthymic disorder and borderline personality disorder. The BCMR Medical Consultant states, in part, that the applicant’s concern that a possible personality disorder diagnosis was instrumental in the final determination of her impairment is not borne out by the evidence of record. The AFPC/DPPD evaluation is at...
The applicant states, and we believe, that he based his decision to be commissioned prior to the completion of his master’s degree so he could attain more time in grade. Therefore, the applicant’s records should be corrected to show he was appointed an Air Force officer after he completed his degree requirements and that he should receive the proper service credit based on that change. THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ VICE CHAIR AFBCMR 01-03301 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01114
Her overseas duty history was not on her OSB when the CY02B lieutenant colonel board met; however, her current duty has since been updated and does reflect completion of the overseas assignment to Turkey. The DPAMF2 evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPPO recommends denial. DPPPO states that completion of training courses are not reflected on OSBs; however, a training report filed in her Officer Selection Record (OSR) documented her attendance and completion of the course in 1991.
AFBCMR 02-00115 INDEX NUMBER: 112.00 MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION BEFORE THE AFBCMR SUBJECT: Having carefully reviewed this application, we agree with the recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has been the victim of either an error or an injustice. Therefore, under the authority delegated in AFI 36- 2603, the applicant's records will be corrected as set forth in...
_________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Her senior raters were never contacted to prepare Promotion Recommendation Forms (PRFs) for the SRBs; she was never provided an opportunity to review her Officer Selection Brief (OSB) for the FY97 SRB; and, the OSB for the FY98 SRB was incomplete. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant’s states that...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03594
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-03594 INDEX CODE: 131.03 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 27 May 2006 ______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be reconsidered by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for promotion to lieutenant colonel with the academic information masked on his Officer Selection...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00045
This is further supported by the senior rater’s final comment on his AF Form 709, “DP and make him MX/CD.” Additionally, as indicated in his “as met” records, the promotion board received a copy of his decoration citation on or after 16 July 2004. Therefore, they are not convinced the senior rater’s letter will change his nonselection status since the original board evaluated his entire officer selection record to include the promotion recommendation for, officer performance reports,...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00008
The applicant was also ineligible for experience credit from 1 Aug 99 to 14 Mar 00 due to receiving a graduate nurse license on 9 Aug 99 from the state of Delaware and then not passing their board until 15 Mar 00. Applicant discusses why the date of 30 Jan 98 indicated on his AF Form 24 as the date of his permanent license is incorrect. However, they state the applicant should not receive the total amount of constructive service credit he is seeking because the time prior to receiving...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-03015
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-03015 INDEX CODE: 111.01, 131.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He receive Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration by the CY01B (5 November 2001) (P0501B) central lieutenant colonel selection board with an amended Officer Selection Brief which correctly reflects his flying data. His...