Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02267
Original file (BC-2005-02267.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  2005-02267
                                        INDEX CODE:131.04
                                        COUNSEL:  NONE

                                        HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her records be corrected to show she was appointed  a  captain  in  the  Air
Force Reserve rather than first lieutenant.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

When she entered the nurse corps, she was awarded 3 years, 8 months  and  15
days credit for her work experience.  She was not aware that  if  she  would
have waited 3 months and 16 days, she would  have  been  commissioned  as  a
captain.  If she had known this information, she would  have  waited  to  be
commissioned.  She asked her recruiter questions regarding this but she  did
not receive accurate information.  She has  4  calendar  years  of  civilian
flight nursing, critical care and emergency experience (CEN  certified)  and
feels as though her experience has been  discounted.   She  hopes  that  the
Board reviewing her appeal will find  her  experience  as  valuable  as  her
patients have.

In support of her appeal, applicant submits a copy of her hours worked as  a
nurse  and  a  copy  of  the  Reserve  Management  Vacancy  System  Position
Information.  The applicant’s submission, with attachments,  is  at  Exhibit
A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from  the  Military  Personnel  Data  System  (MilPDS)
indicates that the applicant was appointed a first  lieutenant,  Reserve  of
the Air Force (Nurse Corps) with a date of rank and  effective  date  of  31
Mach 2005.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ARPC/DPR recommends the application be denied.  DPR  states  that  when  the
applicant was tendered an appointment as a first  lieutenant  and  prior  to
her executing the AF Form 133, she  had  two  options.   The  first  was  to
accept a commission as a  first  lieutenant;  the  second,  to  decline  the
tendered appointment in  the  Air  Force  Reserve.   If  she  had  declined,
advises ARPC/DPR, she would have been required to wait twelve months  before
reapplying  for  appointment  in  accordance  with  Air  Force   directives.
ARPC/DPR indicates that her recruiter provided a memo for  record  regarding
how she counseled the applicant which  shows  no  reference  to  appointment
grades and/or rank.   The  ARPC/DPR  evaluation,  with  attachments,  is  at
Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states that her recruiter informed  her  that  she  would  need  4
points for the rank of captain but when asked about the  difference  between
“professional  experience”  and  “special   professional   experience”   the
recruiter did not know.  When she called ARPC regarding her  sign-in  bonus,
she inquired about her rank and how it was determined.   Her  recruiter  did
not tell her that a  call  to  ARPC  would  have  explained  the  difference
between “professional and special professional  experience.”   She  believes
for this reason she was given inaccurate information by her recruiter.   The
applicant’s letter is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

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 an injustice.   The  applicant  asserts  she  has  suffered  an
injustice  by  not  receiving  accurate  information  from   her   recruiter
regarding her commissioning grade.  Evidence reveals that the applicant  was
aware of her options at the time she accepted an appointment  in  the  grade
of first lieutenant and opted not to decline the tendered appointment  since
she would have been required to wait twelve  months  before  reapplying  for
appointment.  In view of the above and  absent  evidence  by  the  applicant
corroborating her allegation of miscounseling, 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 17 November 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

            Mr. James W. Russell, III, Panel Chair
            Ms. Kathleen B. O’Sullivan, Member
            Ms. LeLoy W. Cottrell, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with  AFBCMR
Docket No. BC-2005-02267:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 Jul 05, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Letter, ARPC/DPR, dated 12 Aug 05, w/atchs.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 Aug 05.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant, dated 30 Aug 05.





                                   JAMES W. RUSSELL III
                                   Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02238

    Original file (BC-2004-02238.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Applicant provides a resume of her education and experience and a copy of her transcript where she was awarded her Bachelor of Science in Nursing and Master of Science in Nursing. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-01913

    Original file (BC-2004-01913.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-01913 INDEX CODE: 135.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: She be awarded 24 months of credit for a Master’s Degree in Business Administration from CA Coast University to allow her appointment in the Air Force Reserves on 1 July 1999 as a First Lieutenant and her date of rank to Captain be...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01434

    Original file (BC 2014 01434.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01434 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her entry/commissioning grade be changed to Captain (Capt/O-3) rather than First Lieutenant (1Lt/02). AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFRS/RSO recommends approval for the Air Force to issue back pay and rank credit to the grade of captain. THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-03912

    Original file (BC-2007-03912.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    At that time, no credit was awarded for work experience unless the applicant had completed a post graduate degree (Masters or PhD). As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit C). After a thorough review of the available evidence and the applicant’s complete submission, we find no evidence which would persuade us that the applicant’s service records should be corrected to show she was appointed to a higher grade at the time of her appointment.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02096

    Original file (BC 2014 02096.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    On 13 Nov 13, the applicant was commissioned in the grade of captain (O-3) in the Reserve of the Air Force. While we note that despite the fact the applicant was led to believe she would be accessed in the grade of captain, her appointment in the grade of first lieutenant was procedurally correct and consistent with the constructive service credit (CSC) policy prescribed in AFI 36-2005, which was the policy in effect at the time of the applicant’s accession once the FY13 CSC policy expired...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02703

    Original file (BC-2003-02703.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 03-02703 INDEX CODE:131.04 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her records be corrected to show she was appointed in the Air Force Reserve in the grade of captain, rather than first lieutenant, and she be given additional constructive service credit for full time experience. Applicant’s original...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03901

    Original file (BC-2005-03901.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    In a letter dated 18 Jan 06 (Exhibit C), HQ AFPC/DPAMF2 requested the applicant explain why she felt she should have been awarded the grade of captain when she entered active duty. The time between her commissioning as a lLT in the Air Force Reserve on 2 Nov 78 and when she entered active duty on 10 Jan 79 is not active service nor creditable as active service for retirement. Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 22 Jan 06, w/atchs.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01441

    Original file (BC-2012-01441.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Upon reentering the military in the BSC, she was initially awarded two full years of credit without specifying which dates were the dates for which she received the educational credit. Per USC Title 10, “A period of time shall be counted only once when computing constructive service credit.” To prevent awarding service credit for the same period of time for her commissioned military service time and time spent earning her MPH degree, DPAFM2 must subtract her two years of educational credit...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050014200C070206

    Original file (20050014200C070206.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    William F. Crain | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The Army Nurse Program Manager noted that, according to Army Regulation 135- 101, chapter 3 and table 3-1, up to 3 years constructive credit was granted at the rate of one-half year per each year of professional experience. The applicant responded by maintaining that the applicable DODI Department of Defense Instruction and 10 USC provisions require that...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03658

    Original file (BC-2004-03658.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 28 May 04, the applicant requested her conditional release from the Army Reserve to enter the Air Force Reserve. Eligibility for promotion to the grade of captain had to be established prior to that date. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 29 Dec 04 for review and...