RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-01263 (Case 2)
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her narrative reason  for  separation  be  changed  from  “Involuntary
Release: Disapproved Request for Extension of Tour” to  “Separated  or
Convenience of the Government.”
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The disapproval of her tour extension may not have been factual or was
contrary to policy.

In support of her request, the applicant submits a personal  statement
and copies of her DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge
or Dismissal from  the  Armed  Forces  of  the  United  States),  with
additional  documents  associated  with  the  issues  cited   in   her
contentions.  The applicant’s complete submission,  with  attachments,
is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 24 Sep 85, the applicant was appointed a second lieutenant, Reserve
of the Air Force Nurse Corps (NC),  and  was  voluntarily  ordered  to
extended active duty on 26 Nov 85.  She was progressively promoted  to
the Reserve grade of captain, effective and with a date of rank  of  1
Jan 90.

Information extracted from the applicant’s submission reveals that, on
6 Jul 89, her Specified Period of Time Contract (SPTC) application was
disapproved because it would have extended her beyond  five  years  of
active duty in a non-career status.  The applicant’s 11 Sep 90 request
to have her Oct 90 date of separation (DOS) extended  to  Oct  91  was
disapproved on 5 Oct 90.
The applicant’s DEROS (date eligible for return from overseas) was  17
Oct 90 (refer to Exhibit A).

Applicant's OER/OPR profile, commencing with the report closing 25 May
86 follows:

            Period Ending    Evaluation

       (2Lt)      25 May 86  1-1-1
                  25 Nov 86  2-2-2 (Referral Report)
                  24 Apr 87  1-1-1
                  24 Oct 87  1-1-1
       (1Lt)      24 Apr 88  1-1-1
                  12 Jun 89  Meets Standards
       (Capt)     12 Jun 90  Meets Standards

On 17 Oct 90, the applicant was released from active  duty  under  the
provisions of AFR 36-12 (Involuntary Release: Disapproved Request  for
Extension of Tour) and transferred to the Air Force Reserve.  She  had
completed a total of 4 years, 10 months and 22 days of active  service
and was  serving  in  the  grade  of  captain  (O3)  at  the  time  of
separation.  The applicant is currently assigned to  the  Nonobligated
Nonparticipating Ready Personnel Section (NNRPS).

The relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the
letters prepared by the  appropriate  offices  of  the  Air  Force  at
Exhibits C and D.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPAMN recommends the application be denied.  DPAMN states  the
applicant’s Specified Period  of  Time  Contract  (SPTC)  request  was
disapproved on  5  Oct  90.   The  applicant’s  Report  on  Individual
Personnel, dated 20 Aug 90, reflects that an  Unfavorable  Information
File (UIF) was established and that  she  was  on  a  Control  Roster.
DPAMN indicated that the cause for the UIF was not  annotated  in  the
applicant’s records.  DPAMN’s stated that the applicant’s Jun  90  OPR
and previous history of a  referral  OPR  (Nov  86)  substantiate  the
comment “very poor OPRs.”  The OPRs  did  not  recommend  continuation
beyond DEROS.  While the UIF was unavailable for review, the  presence
of any UIF and placement on a Control Roster would not have  supported
continuation beyond DEROS.  The denial request for extension  of  tour
in Sep 90 was factually supported on the ground that applicant did not
meet quality force requirements; i.e., had  UIF  and  Control  Roster.
DPAMN indicated that the only available reference to submission of  an
Indefinite Reserve Status (IRS) package was the SPTC, submitted 11 Sep
90, wherein the applicant requested an extension of  her  current  DOS
(17 Oct 90) for 1 year (until Oct 91) as an accompaniment to  her  IRS
package.  The applicant assumed the rank of captain for 9 months.   No
documentation was submitted to reflect she processed an administrative
request to change her career status, even though she  sought  and  was
medically cleared for IRS.  The applicant had  been  informed  of  the
current regulation requiring a nurse officer to acquire  retainability
to fulfill ADSC.  She had not acquired retainability;  thus,  she  did
not have an  ADSC  for  her  promotion  to  captain.   The  denial  of
extension of tour was not contrary to an existing ADSC - her DEROS was
17 Oct 90.  DPAMN indicated that the applicant’s SPTC, dated  May  89,
requesting her Oct 90  DOS  be  extended  until  Oct  91  for  tuition
assistance  was  inadvertently  approved.   The  USAFE  Command  Nurse
subsequently pulled the SPTC because the “officer did not have  career
retention to meet  requirement  for  ‘tuition  assistance’  approval.”
DPAMN stated that no record was available to reflect the applicant had
submitted/had  an  approved  application  for  SPTC  to   extend   her
retainability to meet the tuition assistance  requirement  before  she
applied for tuition assistance.  No record was  available  to  reflect
the applicant submitted/had an approved application for IRS  prior  to
the May SPTC.  Had an IRS package been approved prior to submission of
the May 89 SPTC, the applicant would have had “career status” and been
eligible  for  tuition  assistance.   The  applicant  did   not   meet
retainability requirements  to  apply  for  tuition  assistance.   The
denial of request for extension  of  tour  in  Sep  89  was  factually
supported on the ground that the applicant was in a non-career status.
 The HQ AFPC/DPAMN evaluation is at Exhibit C.


HQ AFPC/DPPPO stated that the applicant met and was selected above-the-
promotion zone (APZ) for promotion to the  grade  of  captain  by  the
CY89B Captain Central Selection Board, which convened on  25  Sep  89.
Per The governing Air  Force  regulation,  each  officer  promoted  to
captain after 1 Jan  90    incurs  a  1-year  ADSC  beginning  on  the
effective date of promotion.  The officer must obtain retainability to
complete the ADSC before  the  promotion  is  effective  or  promotion
orders published.  DPPPO’s records indicate the applicant was  allowed
to pin-on captain without the required  retainability.   Although  she
applied for the retainability at a later date and it was  disapproved,
no action was taken to  affect  her  promotion  to  captain.   The  HQ
AFPC/DPPPO evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on  13
September 2002 for review and response.  As of this date, no  response
has been received by this office (Exhibit E).
_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing  law
or regulations.

2.  The application was not  timely  filed;  however,  it  is  in  the
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the existence of error or injustice.  After a thorough review  of  the
evidence of record and the applicant’s submission, we are  unpersuaded
that the requested relief should be approved.  Applicant’s contentions
are duly noted; however,  other  than  her  own  assertions,  she  has
provided no evidence establishing that her discharge was unfounded  or
unjust.  We found no persuasive evidence  that  responsible  officials
applied  inappropriate  standards   in   effecting   the   applicant’s
discharge, that pertinent Air Force regulations were violated or  that
the applicant was not afforded all the rights to which entitled at the
time  of  discharge.   We  therefore  agree  with  the  opinions   and
recommendations of the appropriate Air Force  offices  and  adopt  the
rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that  the  applicant
has failed to sustain her burden that she has suffered either an error
or an injustice.  In view of the above and absent persuasive  evidence
to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the
relief sought in this application.
_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The  applicant  be  notified  that  the  evidence  presented  did  not
demonstrate the existence of 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 31 October 2002, under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

                  Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
                  Mr. John E. B. Smith, Member
                  Mr. Frederick R. Beaman III, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 23 May 02, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPAMN, dated 16 Aug 02.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPO, dated 10 Sep 02.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 Sep 02.




                                   CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
                                   Panel Chair