RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-01129
                                       INDEX CODE:  131.00
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX                   COUNSEL: NONE

      XXXXXXXXXX                        HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  7 October 2006

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her commissioning in the grade of first lieutenant in  the  Medical  Service
Corps (MSC) be reinstated.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

An inadvertent mistake and injustice has occurred in  regard  to  her  rank.
She  was  commissioned  a  first  lieutenant  in  the  Air  Force  based  on
constructive  service  credit  (CSC)  for  her  graduate  degree  in   Human
Resources.  Nearly a month later, she was contacted and told she had  to  be
re-commissioned as a second lieutenant because her degree  did  not  qualify
for CSC.  She had followed all appropriate processes and there are  numerous
other officers that were credited and awarded a  rank  of  first  lieutenant
for their Master’s Degree in Human Resources Management (HRM).  This  change
in decision was untimely, unjust, and inappropriate.

In support of her  application,  she  provides  a  personal  statement;  and
copies of her Oath of Office, an Air Force Medical Service Corps  Newsletter
for July 2004,  her  education  and  training  information,  and  electronic
correspondence with the Accessions office during her commissioning  process.
 The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 16 November 2004, the applicant was appointed a  first  lieutenant,  MSC,
Reserve of the Air Force (ResAF).  Prior to  being  voluntarily  ordered  to
extended active duty in that grade she  was  notified  that  her  degree  in
Human Resources did not qualify for CSC; therefore, she would have to be re-
commissioned as a second lieutenant if she still wanted to be accepted  into
the  MSC  program.   Subsequently,  she  was  re-commissioned  as  a  second
lieutenant,  MSC,  ResAF,  keeping  her  original  date  of  appointment  of
16 November 2004.  On  2  January  2005,  she  was  voluntarily  ordered  to
extended active duty in the grade of  second  lieutenant  for  a  period  of
three years.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPAMS recommends denying the applicant’s  request.   DPAMS  states  the
applicant’s college  transcripts  were  received  on  13 December  2004  and
reviewed for potential CSC.  Her transcript indicated  she  had  a  master’s
degree in Human Resources Development.  This degree is not included  in  AFI
36-2005 as qualifying for CSC.  Her transcripts  were  further  reviewed  to
determine if she would  be  qualified  with  an  “equivalent”  or  “related”
degree; however, the applicant’s transcripts revealed she had not  completed
coursework in accounting, economics,  statistics,  and  marketing.   Degrees
lacking in any of these areas  are  not  qualifying.   The  applicant  cites
eleven members having degrees in Human Resources that received CSC and  were
appointed first lieutenants.  Following a  review  of  the  eleven  member’s
records, two had qualifying degrees; two had equivalent or related  degrees,
four were given CSC in error, and  three  records  were  not  available  for
review.  DPAMS states they cannot  speak  for  the  errors  made  in  degree
reviews and decisions in  the  past;  however,  it  is  DPAMS  opinion  that
perpetuating this mistake by granting CSC to the applicant is not the  right
answer.   DPAMS  has  taken  steps  to  ensure  prospective  applicants  are
notified early on that a graduate degree in HRM does  not  qualify  for  CSC
without the mandatory five graduate courses.  The  DPAMS  evaluations,  with
attachments, are at Exhibits C and D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

There are many instances where the MSC Accessions office has had a  tendency
to deviate or be inconsistent with the  degree  guidance  printed  in  their
Applicant Guide and other posted policies.  She was told  in  November  2003
that her master’s degree was qualifying for the program.  In the  two  years
of correspondence with the Accessions office, she was never  told  that  her
graduate degree was not qualifying.  If she had been  told  her  degree  was
not qualifying, she could have had the opportunity to  change  her  academic
major.  She was always told and  led  to  believe  her  degree  did  qualify
because a precedent had been set  to  award  credit  for  this  degree.   No
previous applicants had been denied  CSC  for  a  graduate  human  resources
degree.  It is evident in the additional advisory by the Office  of  Primary
Responsibility that the MSC Admissions office  selectively  chose  to  apply
the Applicant Guide in her case.  She feels she should receive her  rank  of
first lieutenant back based on this finding alone.

The Oath of Office was a very memorable event in her life and also  for  her
family who attended the ceremony.  To ask a service member to  re-accomplish
an Oath of Office  based  on  errors  from  the  responsible  office  is  an
injustice.  Once an individual is cleared for commission by  the  Accessions
office and the Oath of Office has been taken, a re-review  of  paperwork  to
determine if one is qualified for  the  commissioned  rank  is  an  improper
procedure.  According to the  accession  packet  she  received  when  making
application, the proper  procedure  for  validating  qualifying  degrees  is
before an applicant executes the Oath of Office.  The applicant’s  rebuttal,
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 is timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of probable error or  injustice.   The  applicant  feels  she  has
suffered an injustice by not receiving CSC for her Master’s Degree in  Human
Resources.  We note that in accordance  with  AFI  36-2005,  current  policy
does not allow CSC for this degree without equivalent or related  coursework
in accounting, economics, statistics, marketing and finance.  We  also  note
the applicant does not have all of the required coursework  to  qualify  for
an equivalent or related degree.  Prior to the time  the  applicant  entered
active duty, the error concerning her entitlement to CSC was discovered  and
she was offered the opportunity to either accept or decline  an  appointment
in the grade of  second  lieutenant.   The  applicant  voluntarily  accepted
entry on active duty as a second lieutenant.  While the  applicant  believes
she has been the victim of an injustice because at least four other  members
were erroneously granted CSC under similar circumstances, we disagree  based
on the fact that the applicant, having been  duly  notified  of  this  fact,
accepted  entry  on  active  duty  in  the  grade  of   second   lieutenant.
Therefore, we concur with the opinion and recommendation of  the  office  of
primary  responsibility  and   adopt   their   rationale   in   this   case.
Accordingly, the applicant’s request 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 this application in  Executive
Session on 4 October 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

            Ms. B. J. White-Olson, Panel Chair
            Ms. Jean A. Reynolds, Member
            Ms. Josephine L. Davis, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with  AFBCMR
Docket No. BC-2005-01129:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 29 Mar 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPAMS, dated 6 Jun 05.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Jun 05.
    Exhibit E.  Applicant’s Rebuttal, undated 19 Aug 05, w/atchs.




                                   B. J. White-Olson
                                   Panel Chair