RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-00008
            INDEX NUMBER:  102.00
      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  None

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  27 Jun 06

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The date of his initial license as a nurse be changed to 2 Jul 97 vice
30 Jan 98.

The periods of his professional experience be changed as follows:

        a.  Award credit for the period 2 Jul 97 to 2 Jun  03  instead
of 30 Jan 98 to 30 Apr 99.

        b.  Award credit for the period 20 Mar 00 to 2 Jun 03  instead
of 15 Apr 00 to 2 Jun 03.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His professional experience as reflected in his resume shows proof  of
his experience without any break in service.

He was issued his initial license on 2 Jul 97.  Although  he  was  not
issued a permanent license until 30 Jan 98, he strongly believes  that
the earlier date should be taken into consideration as  the  start  of
his professional experience.  As his resume indicates, he never had  a
break in his professional experience greater than two months,  so  the
dates of his professional experience were input incorrectly.

In support of his appeal, applicant provides a copy of his provisional
nursing license, a copy of the “Medical Service  and  Pay  Computation
Worksheet,” which shows the periods of professional experience he  was
given credit for, a copy of his extended active duty orders, AETC Form
1437, and a copy of his resume.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is  at  Exhibit
A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is presently serving on active  duty  in  the  grade  of
first lieutenant as  a  clinical  nurse.   His  Total  Active  Federal
Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 25 Aug 03.  He was commissioned  via
direct appointment and entered active  duty  in  the  grade  of  first
lieutenant.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPAMF2   recommends   denial   of   the    applicant’s    appeal.
Additionally, they note the applicant was  erroneously  given  service
credit for 45 days, which they recommend be taken away.  They note the
formula for awarding service credit to individuals who have  completed
full time professional experience in the specialty in which  appointed
in the Air Force, when the experience is accrued after  obtaining  the
qualifying degree or license,  is  one-half  year  for  each  year  of
experience  up  to  a  maximum  of  three  years.   The  AF  Form   24
(Application for Appointment as Reserve  of  the  Air  Force  or  USAF
without component) signed by the applicant reflects his  license  date
as 30 Jan 98.  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.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In his response to the Air Force evaluation, the  applicant  indicates
he has identified several discrepancies.  Applicant states that he has
identified that incorrect  information  was  placed  in  his  official
records without his knowledge and that his  records  have  forms  with
information that was added after he had already signed them.

The applicant  states  that  the  dates  given  for  his  professional
experience are wrong.  He states he is requesting constructive service
for the period 1 Sep 97 to 24  Aug  04.   He  attaches  a  spreadsheet
showing  the  inclusive  dates  and  locations  of  his   professional
experience.  He states he has also attached corroborating letters  and
memorandums.  Applicant provides the following information in  support
of his appeal.

        a.  Applicant discusses the requirements of AFI 36-2005, dated
19 May 03, Table 2.5, Rule 41 in regards to how  constructive  service
should be computed.

        b.  Applicant discusses why the date of 30 Jan 98 indicated on
his AF Form 24 as the date of his permanent license is incorrect.   He
states the correct date is 2 Jul 97.  He states that AFI 36-2005  does
not say a provisional license cannot be taken into  consideration  for
credit.

        c.  Applicant discusses  why  he  should  receive  credit  for
employment during the period 1 Aug 99 through 14 Mar  00  although  he
did not pass the Delaware board until  15  Mar  00.   He  states  that
during this time he maintained his license in Puerto Rico.

        d.  Applicant states  that  he  was  incorrectly  reported  as
unemployed for the time period from 30 Dec to 29  Jan  98  [sic].   He
states he worked at the Correctional Psychiatric Hospital from  15 Dec
98 to 15 May 99.   He  states  that  the  AF  Form  24  referenced  by
AFPC/DPAMF2 lists information he did not provide and  is  contrary  to
the AF Form 24s that he signed and kept  for  his  records.   He  also
notes that there is white out on the form with  information  rewritten
in pen and ink.

         e.  Applicant  notes  that  the   spreadsheet   prepared   by
AFPC/DPAMF2 incorrectly reflects he was unemployed from 3 Jun 03 to 24
Aug 03.  He states he worked for the  Veterans  Health  Administration
from 1 Oct 00 to 24 Aug 03.

Finally, applicant states it is his belief some of  his  records  have
been altered without his knowledge or permission.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is  at  Exhibit
E.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Pursuant to the Board’s request, AFPC/DPAMF2  provided  an  additional
evaluation to address the new issues raised by the  applicant  in  his
response  to  their  initial  evaluation.   AFPC/DPAMF2  continues  to
recommend denial of the applicant’s  requests,  including  applicant’s
amended request, based on their following response:

        a.  The applicant  initially  requested  constructive  service
credit (CSC) from 1 Sep 97 to 2 Jun 03, but is now requesting CSC from
1 Sep 97 to 24 Aug 03.

        b.  They note that AF Form 24s are provided to  them  from  HQ
AFRS and attach  a  response  from  them  addressing  the  applicant’s
allegations regarding his AF Form 24.  In their  response,  AFRS/RSOCM
notes they cannot reconstruct when, where, or by whom the  information
on  the  contested  AF  Form  24  was  typed.   They  state  that  the
information on page four is correct in all aspects with the  exception
of changes to the dates of employment.  They  further  note  that  the
Recruiting Service is responsible to obtain the information on the  AF
Form 24 from the applicant and accurately report it.   As  such,  they
verify the information before  awarding  CSC.   They  opine  that  the
information was changed on the AF  Form  24  during  the  verification
process.  They recommend that any CSC granted the applicant  be  based
on verified employment information.

        c.  AFPC/DPAMF2 notes that AFI 36-2005,  Table  2.5,  Rule  41
states “qualifying degree or license.”  A provisional license does not
qualify because it is only a “provisional”  license.   They  note  the
applicant’s provisional license states he is to pass another class  or
the provisional  license  is  cancelled.   They  note  his  qualifying
license does not have such wording.

        d.  To simplify matters, AFPC/DPAMF2 states they will use  the
dates for CSC the applicant uses in his rebuttal  and  they  attach  a
spreadsheet to address each time period the applicant provides.

        e.  To award the applicant CSC for the periods  listed  below,
they require a source document, e.g., a letter  from  the  applicant’s
former employer verifying that he worked at least 32  hours  per  week
and was considered a full time employee at the following locations:

            1.  Correctional Psychiatric Hospital for the period    15
Dec 98 to 15 May 99.

            2.  xxxxxxx Community Clinic for the period 1 Jun 99 to 31
Jul 99.

        f.  AFPC/DPAMF2 notes if the  applicant  provides  the  source
documents requested, he would also receive CSC for the time period  he
was unemployed from 16 May 99 to 31 May 99.

AFPC/DPAMF2 notes that AFI 36-2005, Table 2.5, Rule  41  states  award
full time professional experience in the specialty in which  appointed
when the experience is accrued after obtaining the  qualifying  degree
or license.  Since the applicant received his qualifying license on 30
Jan 98, anything prior would  not  count  towards  experience  credit.
AFPC/DPAMF2  discusses  at  length  why  the  applicant’s  provisional
license does not qualify.  They also note that the applicant will keep
the 45 days CSC for the period  1  Aug  99  to  31  Oct  99  they  had
originally recommended he lose, pending the  results  of  his  Nursing
Clinical Licensing Exam (NCLEX).  They base this  on  a  determination
the state of Delaware would accept the applicant’s license from Puerto
Rico until the results of his NCLEX are known.  The applicant  remains
ineligible for CSC from 1 Nov 99 to 14 Mar 00 due to failing the state
of Delaware board.  They note also the applicant  was  not  performing
the necessary duties during this period to qualify for CSC.

The additional Air Force evaluation, with attachments, is  at  Exhibit
F.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the additional Air Force evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the
applicant on 15 Apr 05 for review and  comment  within  30  days.   To
date, a response has not been received.

_________________________________________________________________

SECOND ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

After further review of  applicant’s  case,  AFPC/DPAMF2  prepared  an
addendum  to  the  additional  evaluation  above.   They  continue  to
recommend denial of  the  applicant’s  appeal.   They  note  that  the
applicant was provided additional constructive service credit based on
employment verification he was asked to provide.  However, they  state
the applicant should not receive  the  total  amount  of  constructive
service credit he is seeking because the time prior to  receiving  his
qualifying license in Puerto Rico  (30 Jan 98) and  the  time  between
his initial failure and subsequent passing  of  the  Nursing  Clinical
Licensing Exam (NCLEX), 1 Nov 99 to 14 Mar 00, is not  authorized  per
AFI      36-2005.

The complete addendum evaluation is at Exhibit H.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO SECOND ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the second additional Air Force evaluation was forwarded  to
the applicant on 10 May for review and comment  within  30  days.   To
date, a response has not been received.

_________________________________________________________________

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.   We  took  notice  of   the
applicant's complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the  case;
however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force
office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the  basis
for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the  victim  of  an
error or injustice.  Therefore, in the  absence  of  evidence  to  the
contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief
sought in this application.

4.  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-
00008 in Executive Session on 15 June 2005, under  the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
      Ms. Martha A. Maust, Member
      Mr. Wallace F. Beard, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 16 Dec 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPAMF2, dated 11 Jan 05,
                w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Jan 05.
    Exhibit E.  Memorandum, Applicant, dated 16 Feb 05.
    Exhibit F.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPAMF2, dated 8 Apr 05,
                w/atchs.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Apr 05.
    Exhibit H.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPAMF2, dated 10 May 05,
                w/atchs.
    Exhibit I.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 May 05.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Chair