RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-00328
                                             INDEX CODE:  131.00
      XXXXXXX                           COUNSEL:  None

      XXXXXXX                           HEARING DESIRED:  Yes


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  24 Jul 06


________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her date of rank (DOR) as a second lieutenant be changed  from      28
Mar 03 to 30 May 01.

She be  promoted  retroactively  to  the  grade  of  first  lieutenant
effective 30 May 03.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was accepted into a nursing program under the  Health  Professions
Scholarship Program (HPSP), which began after her graduation from  the
Air Force Academy (Academy).  She suffered several injustices  due  to
not being instructed what her participation in the  program  entailed.
After entering nursing school, she  learned  there  was  a  difference
between the type of nurse she was training for and the area  in  which
the Air Force would utilize her.  She wanted to work  in  a  different
area from what the Air Force wanted.  Prior to disenrolling  from  the
nursing program, she called the HPSP manager to learn what options she
had.  She was advised she could not transfer to another nursing school
because the Air Force was not affiliated with any other nursing school
and that she could not change the type of nursing training because the
Air Force wanted nurses trained in critical  care  from  the  program.
She was told that if she withdrew,  she  would  more  than  likely  be
classified as a line officer, since she did not have a nursing degree.
 She was also told that nothing could be done in her case  until  such
time as she had officially withdrawn from the  nursing  program.   She
asked what effect withdrawing would have on her Air Force  career  and
was not told anything.

The applicant notes that while attending her nursing program, the HPSP
manager was her only contact with the Air Force.  She had no access to
her Air Force records and, hence, her HPSP  contract.   She  seeks  to
emphasize the fact that she made a career-affecting  decision  without
knowing the consequences of that action, namely, that it would lead to
her date of rank as a first lieutenant being delayed  for  almost  two
years.

The applicant points out  that  her  decision  to  withdraw  from  her
nursing program was due to several factors:

        a.  She was told she could not get an answer to what she would
be doing on active duty in the Air  Force  until  her  withdrawal  was
complete.

        b.  The small stipend she received  under  the  HPSP  was  not
sufficient to cover her cost of living in the city  where  the  school
was located.  This required her to work two extra jobs.

        c.  Her extra  jobs  took  time  away  from  her  studies  and
resulted in her grades slipping.

        d.  She had passed the  National  Nursing  Clinical  Licensing
Exam and hoped that the Air Force would accept her license to practice
nursing.

She officially withdrew from her program on 28 Mar 03 and asked to  be
returned to active duty.  She arrived at her new duty station  exactly
two years from the date she had been commissioned a second lieutenant.
 Based on the normal progression from second to first lieutenant,  she
assumed she was promoted to first lieutenant.  She was not aware  that
her time as a second lieutenant in the Air  Force  Reserve  would  not
count toward an active duty promotion.  With her arrival  at  her  new
duty station came problems with her active duty military pay.  Because
she was an accession, she was told it would take  approximately  three
months to process all her paperwork and get her pay set  up  properly.
She was given advance pay  and  Basic  Allowance  for  Housing  (BAH).
Additionally, based on her pointing out to the finance office that she
had been commissioned at the Academy and should be a first lieutenant,
they agreed to pay her as a first lieutenant.   After  explaining  her
situation to her commander, he agreed to allow her to wear  the  grade
of a first lieutenant while her paperwork was being processed.

The applicant provides an overview of several cases initiated  on  her
behalf to address her problems with her grade and pay problems:

        a.  The local military personnel flight (MPF)  initiated  case
#1 to verify her DOR.  The case was closed on  17  Jul  03  when  AFPC
verified her rank as captain (0-3).  Applicant states  she  knew  this
was wrong.  She discusses the problems she had with her pay due  to  a
debt to the government she was assessed.  She also notes she protested
to the finance office she was being paid  incorrectly  as  a  captain.
She was advised to put aside  $2,000  to  be  able  to  pay  back  the
difference between captain and first lieutenant pay.

        b.  The finance office opened a second case on her to  correct
her pay and rank.  While she was TDY to school, she was  charged  with
larceny and wrongful appropriation for receiving captain’s  pay  as  a
first lieutenant.  She spent three to four weeks attempting  to  clear
her name.  The charges were eventually dropped.  It was pointed out by
AFPC promotions that they needed  a  source  document  to  change  the
applicant’s records.  The applicant indicates that she began a  direct
dialogue with AFPC in an effort to get her rank corrected.  She  notes
that at least three more cases were opened on her.  When she  returned
from a  TDY,  she  learned  her  grade  had  been  changed  to  second
lieutenant.   It  was  then  she  learned  she   would   not   receive
constructive service credit for the two years she spent attending  the
nurses training program.  The Defense Finance and  Accounting  Service
(DFAS) notified her she would have to pay back the difference  between
a captain’s pay rate and that of a second lieutenant.   The  applicant
states if she had known that her first lieutenant rank was  incorrect,
she would have set aside more money.

The applicant opines she suffered the following injustices:

        a.  When she signed the contract to participate in  the  HPSP,
she was not provided a copy, which would have allowed  her  to  become
more familiar with the program.

        b.  She had to live off monetary advances instead of receiving
the proper pay and allowances she was entitled to.

        c.  She was paid incorrectly and had to set  aside  money  for
repayment at a later date.

        d.  She was charged with larceny and  wrongful  appropriations
for receiving captain’s pay as a first lieutenant.   She  thought  she
had proper authorization from her commander to wear the grade of first
lieutenant.

The applicant requests the Board consider the following points:

        a.  She acknowledges she signed the HPSP contract, but did not
understand all of the nuances of the program, especially that  if  she
resigned, she would remain a second lieutenant for two extra years.

        b.  She asked for but did not  receive  a  copy  of  the  HPSP
contract  and  paperwork.   This  prevented  her  from  reviewing  and
becoming familiar with the program.  Had she  known  that  eliminating
from the program would result in her remaining a second lieutenant for
an extra two years, she would not have eliminated from the program.

        c.  She had no one to properly advise her about the  HPSP  and
her career.  Assumptions were  made  that  she  would  understand  the
difference between a  Reserve  lieutenant  and  a  Regular  Air  Force
lieutenant.

        d.  A reasonable and prudent person in her position would have
made the same assumption she did that she would be promoted  to  first
lieutenant on her two-year anniversary date.

        e.  She notified the MPF and Finance office  that  she  was  a
first lieutenant because she believed it was true.  She  reported  the
error of being paid as a captain and did as she was advised in setting
aside money to repay the difference between pay as a captain and first
lieutenant.  If  she  had  known  her  grade  was  that  of  a  second
lieutenant, she would have set more money aside.

        f.  She believes she has done what is reasonably  expected  of
an officer with her experience.  She does not believe it is right  she
was forced into her current living arrangements because of errors made
by AFPC and DFAS.

In support of her appeal, applicant  provides  a  five-page  statement
with nine attachments.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant attended the Academy from Jun 97 to May 01.  In Apr  01,
she was accepted into the HPSP and a nursing  training  program.   The
applicant signed the contact to participate in the HPSP on      5  Jun
01. On 31 Jul 01, the applicant was appointed a second  lieutenant  in
the Air Force Reserve Medical Service Corps.  She  began  her  nursing
training program  in  Aug  01.   Based  on  a  copy  provided  by  the
applicant, in a letter dated 27 Mar 03, she notified AFIT/CIMJ she was
terminating her participation in the HPSP and was withdrawing from her
nursing training program on     28 Mar 03.   The  applicant  indicated
she was willing to fulfill her obligation under  the  HPSP  by  active
duty service.  The applicant was ordered to extended active duty on 30
May 03 in the grade of second lieutenant.  She is presently serving on
active duty in the grade of first lieutenant with a DOR of 28 Mar 05.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPAMF2 recommends denial of the applicant’s case.  The  applicant
signed a contract that stated she would not receive pay  credit  while
in the Reserves.  Her grade, date  of  rank,  and  pay  date  are  all
correct.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPO does not make a recommendation  regarding  the  applicant’s
request.  However, they note that if the  applicant  is  retroactively
promoted to first lieutenant, she  would  be  eligible  for  promotion
consideration to captain by special  selection  board  for  the  CY04A
Captain Promotion  Process  and  if  selected  would  pin  on  captain
effective 30 May 05.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In her response to the Air Force evaluation, the applicant notes  that
in hindsight she signed an HPSP contract she did not fully  understand
and was not given the opportunity to understand.  The  documents  were
not provided  in  advance  for  her  preview.   When  she  signed  the
documents, she was not allotted enough time to review  and  understand
them.  The briefing she received at the Air Force Academy  focused  on
the active duty service commitment she would owe  upon  completion  of
the HPSP program and did not cover the issue of date of rank  or  when
she would be able to return to active duty.  Applicant notes that  her
date of rank upon return to active duty would not have been  an  issue
if she had completed the program.  The applicant stresses that she  is
attempting to emphasize that she did not understand  the  consequences
of separating from her training  program  and  the  extreme  financial
hardship her decision would cause her.  She states that prior  to  her
withdrawal from the program she attempted to contact  the  appropriate
Air Force officials, but could not reach anyone and therefore received
no further guidance from the Air  Force  before  she  was  allowed  to
withdraw from the training program.  The applicant reiterates that she
is disputing the fairness of her situation  although  she  signed  the
contract.  She notes that she is still experiencing problems with  her
pay.  The applicant requests that the  Board  consider  the  following
points:

        a.  She willingly signed the HPSP contract so she could attend
nursing school.  However, she believes the HPSP  program  coordinators
had a responsibility to provide full information  regarding  the  HPSP
contract prior to  her  signature.   The  contract  should  have  been
provided in advance for adequate time to review and ask questions.  It
was also the responsibility of Air Force officials to  provide  copies
of the signed contracts to her.

        b.  AFPC and DFAS experts made several attempts to figure  out
what her rank and pay should be and took  seven  months  to  make  the
final decision that has resulted in her present  situation.   Yet  she
was expected to know what her rank and pay should be.

        c.  AFPC and  DFAS  continue  to  make  errors  regarding  her
military service time and pay  dates.   The  problems  have  persisted
after two years of attention and effort to correct them.   The  errors
will cause another financial debt and may result in a loss of pay  for
an unknown period of time.

The applicant’s complete response, with attachment, is at Exhibit F.

________________________________________________________________

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 error or injustice.  The applicant acknowledges  that
based on the HPSP contract she signed, her date of rank  as  a  second
lieutenant when she entered active  duty  is  correct.   However,  she
argues the Air Force failed to fulfill its  responsibility  to  inform
her of the requirements contained in the contract she signed  and  did
not provide her a copy for her review  and  education.   Consequently,
she made the, in hindsight, regrettable decision to withdraw from  her
training program, which has led to problems with  her  grade  and  pay
since entering active duty.  Even accepting the applicant’s contention
she was not provided a copy of the HPSP contract, she has not provided
sufficient evidence of due diligence on her part to get  the  copy  of
the contract she was entitled to.  Additionally, we  do  not  find  it
entirely reasonable that the applicant, given her status as an Academy
cadet, did not understand that failure to complete an Air Force funded
training program,  especially  for  voluntary  withdrawal,  would  not
entail some penalty.  It further appears the applicant’s efforts  were
lacking in ensuring she consulted with proper  Air  Force  authorities
before executing her decision to withdraw from her  training  program.
After weighing all the elements of this case, we do not  believe  that
advancement in grade is an appropriate remedy.  As she herself  points
out, had she completed  the  nursing  program,  she  would  have  been
promoted.  We cannot justify placing the applicant on the  same  level
as those officers that may have completed their  training  program  or
with her peer Academy graduates who have earned  their  promotions  to
first lieutenant through two years of  active  duty  service.   Again,
even accepting that the Air Force committed errors in  her  case,  she
has not provided evidence of responsible action on her  part  to  show
injustice warranting the requested relief.  Therefore, in the  absence
of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to  recommend
granting the relief sought in this application.

4.  Based on the problems the applicant alleges  she  has  encountered
with her pay and pay grade since reentering active duty, such as debts
established for  overpayment,  she  may  want  to  consider  filing  a
separate appeal, with supporting documentation, based on these issues.
 There is insufficient detail in the present case for us to  recommend
any corrective action on the particular problems she has discussed.

5.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not  been
shown  that  a  personal  appearance  with  or  without  counsel  will
materially  add  to  our  understanding  of   the   issues   involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

________________________________________________________________

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 Docket  Number  BC-2005-
00328 in Executive Session on 10 May 05, under the provisions  of  AFI
36-2603:

      Ms. Cathlynn B. Sparks, Panel Chair
      Mr. Patrick C. Daugherty, Member
      Ms. Marcia Jean Bachman, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 20 Jan 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPAMF2, dated 15 Feb 05.
    Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 30 Mar 05.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Apr 05.
    Exhibit F.  Memorandum, Applicant, dated 26 Apr 05, w/atchs.




                                   CATHLYNN B. SPARKS
                                   Panel Chair