RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:            DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-03901
                 INDEX CODE: 102.02, 111.05, 131.01, 136.00

                 COUNSEL:  NONE


                 HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  24 Jun 07

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The following corrective actions be taken:

      1.  Her entry grade to active duty on 10 Jan 79  be  changed  to
captain.

      2.  She be awarded back  pay  for  the  difference  between  1st
lieutenant (lLT) and captain pay for the period 10 Jan  79  and  9 Jan
81.

      3.  Change her eligibility for promotion to the grade  of  major
in the secondary zone to Jan 83.

      4.  Change her eligibility for promotion to the grade  of  major
in the primary zone to Jan 85.

      5.  The Officer Effectiveness Reports  (OERs)  for  the  periods
1 Aug 81 through 31 Jul 82 and 23 Oct 83 through 22 Oct 84 be removed.

      6.  Promotion to major and  designation  as  a  Regular  officer
effective 1 Jan 87 with back pay.

      7.  Promotion to lieutenant colonel effective 1 Jan 91 with back
pay.

      8.  Promotion to colonel effective 1 Jan 96 with back pay.

      9.  She be retired effective 1 Feb 99 with back pay.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She  was  told  she  would  enter  active  duty  as  a  captain;   the
calculations provided by the recruiter were based on the fact that she
had her baccalaureate degree in nursing (BSN)  and  more  than  enough
civilian work experience.  She should have entered active duty in  the
grade of captain with a date of  rank  (DOR)  and  effective  date  of
10 Jan 79.  With the correction of her entry grade and  DOR,  all  her
eligibility dates for  future  promotion  boards  are  affected.   The
contested reports were prejudicial and with their  removal  she  would
have been promoted  accordingly.   She  was  awarded  the  Meritorious
Service Medal (MSM) for her service at Homestead; there are  very  few
captains with only seven years of active duty who receive this  award.
The MSM negates the erroneous comments of  the  31 Jul  82  OER.   She
provides letters of appreciation she believes justify removing the OER
closing 22 Oct 84. Further, the rating chain on that report  is  wrong
and renders it administratively incorrect.  She claims  when  she  was
honorably discharged on 31 Mar 97, she had  over  18  years  of  total
federal commissioned service (TFCS).  In a statement, the former Chief
of Hospital Services indicated the applicant’s 22 Oct  84  OER  should
have been forwarded to him for review  for  possible  endorsement,  in
accordance with his policy. The former chief  nurse  asserted  in  her
statement that the 22 Oct 84 OER should have been routed  to  her  for
signature.  Also provided is a statement from the additional rater  of
the contested 31 Jul 82 OER, who indicates he failed  to  obtain  more
information on the applicant at the  time  and  supports  voiding  the
report.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Air Force Regulation (AFR) 36-15, para. 6-6,b(2)(a), dated 22 Sep  78,
indicates appointment to captain requires  six  years  of  appropriate
professional experience in  addition  to  a  baccalaureate  degree  in
nursing.  A minimum of two of the six years or professional experience
must have been spent in public health,  teaching,  or  an  appropriate
administrative position.  Per para.  2-1,f(2)  regarding  constructive
service credit  (CSC),  unless  otherwise  provided,  only  experience
gained after a member attained the appropriate degree is creditable as
service in an active status for appointment for duty  in  one  of  the
applicable specialties.

The applicant earned her BSN in Jan 77.  She applied for an Air  Force
Reserve appointment on 15 Aug 78.

On 19 Oct 78, she was tendered an indefinite term of appointment as  a
Reserve of the Air Force in the  grade  of  1LT.   The  applicant  was
advised either to  sign  the  Oath  of  Office  if  she  accepted  the
appointment, or to return the letter with her statement of declination
if she was unable to accept the appointment.  She  would  not  perform
the duties of an officer under  this  appointment  until  specifically
ordered  by  competent  authority.    The   applicant   accepted   the
appointment and signed the Oath of Office on 2 Nov 78,  whereupon  she
was appointed to the Reserve grade of 1LT.

According to HQ AFPC/DPAMF2, the applicant  was  credited  with  three
years of CSC.  She was ordered on extended active duty  (EAD)  in  the
grade of 1LT effective 10 Jan 79.

By Special Order dated 4 Dec 79, the applicant  was  promoted  to  the
Reserve grade of captain, effective  2 Nov  79.   However,  the  order
directed she would continue to  serve  in  temporary  appointment  and
would not perform duty in the Reserve grade to which promoted, nor  be
entitled to pay and allowances in the Reserve grade, unless ordered to
active duty in such grade by competent authority.

By Special Order dated 10 Jan 81, the applicant was  promoted  to  the
temporary grade of captain, effective and with a DOR of 10 Jan 81.

A performance report profile since 10 Jan 79 follows:

           PERIOD ENDING          EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

                  9 Jul 79                   2-2-2
                 18 Feb 80                   2-2-2
                 18 Aug 80                   1-1-1
                 31 Jul 81                   1-1-1
                 31 Jul 82                   2-2-2*
                 16 Mar 83                   2-1-1
                 22 Oct 83                   1-1-1
                 22 Oct 84                   2-X-2*
                 22 Oct 85                   1-1-1
                 22 Oct 85                   1-1-1
                 22 Oct 86                   1-1-1
                 26 Jun 87                   1-1-X
                  7 Mar 88                   1-1-1
                  1 Jan 99        Meets Standards

* Contested reports

The 16 Mar 83 OER had the same rating chain as the previous  contested
31 Jul 82 report.

On 3 Feb 89, the applicant was involuntarily released from active duty
and transferred to  the  Air  Force  Reserve  because  she  was  twice
nonselected to the grade of major.  She had 10 years and  24  days  of
total active federal commissioned service (TAFCS) and received $30,000
in separation pay.

The Temporary Early Retirement Act (TERA), which allowed  active  duty
retirement with more than 15 but less than 20 years of active service,
was enacted in  Fiscal  Year  1992  (FY92)  after  the  applicant  was
released from active duty.  Further, she only had 10 years and 24 days
of active service at the time of her release.

The applicant was honorably discharged from the Air Force  Reserve  on
31 Mar 97.

The applicant submitted an AFBCMR appeal dated 15 Dec 05.  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.  In a letter dated  22 Jan  06  (Exhibit
D), the applicant provided additional documents  and  explained  that,
based on what her recruiter told her, she  believed  she  would  enter
active duty as a captain.  She did not ask for “proof.”   If  she  had
been given all the credit to which she believes she is  entitled,  she
would have entered active duty in the permanent grade of captain,  not
1LT, and her DOR would have been adjusted accordingly.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPAMF2 recommends denial because the applicant  did  not  have
two years of professional experience spent in public health, teaching,
or an appropriate administrative position as required by regulation at
the time. The applicant received her BSN in Jan  77;  therefore,  work
experience towards 1LT or above did not begin until  after  completion
of that degree. She earned three years  of  CSC--two  years  for  work
experience plus one year for education.  Since she had  exactly  three
years CSC, she entered active duty as a 1LT.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit E.

HQ AFPC/DPPPOO also recommends denial.   The  applicant’s  eligibility
for promotion  to  major,  lieutenant  colonel  and  colonel  are  all
contingent on her entry grade.  She was accessed properly in the grade
of 1LT and there is no entitlement for  earlier  promotion  boards  to
major, lieutenant colonel and colonel.  Had she  been  accessed  as  a
captain, there is no evidence she would have been a selectee by any of
her promotion boards to these grades.   Further,  to  grant  a  direct
promotion would be unfair to all  other  officers  who  had  extremely
competitive records and also did not get promoted.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit F.

HQ AFPC/DPPPEP recommends denial.  They discuss the  weakness  of  the
supporting statements provided.  They noted the  numerous  letters  of
appreciation.  Although the applicant was able  to  excel  in  certain
areas, the rater is the best person to accurately document a  member’s
overall performance.  An evaluation report is considered  an  accurate
assessment when rendered; therefore, substantial evidence is  required
to challenge a report’s accuracy.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit G.

HQ AFPC/DPPRRP recommends denial, noting that although  the  applicant
did have over 18 years of TFCS when she was discharged  from  the  Air
Force Reserve on 31 May 97, she had only 10 years  and  24  months  of
TAFCS and therefore does not qualify for  an  active  duty  retirement
under Title 10, USC, Section 8911.  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.  From  4 Feb  89,  the  day  after  her
release from active duty, to 31 Mar 97, when she was  discharged  from
the Air Force Reserve, is also not creditable as active service.   The
TERA was not in effect when the applicant  was  released  from  active
duty and, even if it was, she would not have qualified.

A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit H.

HQ AFPC/JA concurs with the other AFPC advisories and their  analyses,
conclusions, and recommendations.  They believe, however, that further
inquiry into the timeliness of the  application  is  warranted.   They
fully recognize that the Board seldom denies an application solely  on
the basis of timeliness, electing instead to consider most  claims  on
the merits.  However, in  this  case,  they  urge  the  Board  to  act
otherwise.  The  financial  consequences  to  the  Air  Force  if  the
applicant’s requests are granted are staggering.  Yet, had  she  filed
within the statutory period, any necessary correction would have  been
limited  to  determining  the  proper  entry   grade   and   promotion
eligibility dates for consideration to major.  Any subsequent  actions
would have then proceeded  in  proper  due  course.   By  unreasonably
delaying, the applicant has raised the financial stakes  for  the  Air
Force to an unconscionable and totally  unnecessary  level.   This  is
precisely the type of reason that has prompted Congress  to  impose  a
statute of limitations in the first place.  The application should  be
denied  based  on  the  applicant’s   unjustified   and   unreasonable
untimeliness.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit I.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

She did not know about the appeal process until her  husband  (married
in 2003) told her  about  the  AFBCMR.   If  not  for  the  injustices
regarding her promotion record, a reasonable and prudent person  would
realize immediately that she would have remained on active duty for at
least 20 years and qualified for retirement.  If her case is approved,
she would return the $30,000 separation pay she received.  She asserts
the HQ AFPC/DPPPEP advisory opinion  questions  her  truthfulness  and
impugns the integrity  of  the  officers  supporting  her  case.   She
provides  a  list  of  what  she  contends  is  her  civilian  nursing
experience and highlights her administrative nursing  positions.   She
argues the HQ AFPC/DPPPOO advisory is misleading; once  the  contested
OERs are voided she would not  be  in  the  “not  promoted  area”  but
justifiably in the “definitely promoted area.”

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

_________________________________________________________________

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 to warrant granting the  requested
relief.  HQ AFPC/JA’s arguments  regarding  the  untimeliness  of  the
applicant’s case were carefully considered, and we  acknowledge  their
validity.  In particular, certain inequities  to  the  government  can
result from having to respond to claims of error or injustice  over  a
significant passage of time; that is, delay in time can seriously  and
unreasonably multiply the  potential  financial  consequences  of  the
requested correction.  The applicant’s list of  requested  corrections
raised multiple issues,  some  interconnected  with  others  and  some
separate in themselves.  We did not believe we could pick  and  choose
which items could be dismissed outright as untimely while  considering
others on the merits.  After considerable discussion, we  were  uneasy
dismissing the entire case on the basis of timeliness and concluded we
should weigh the issues on their merits, or  lack  thereof.   In  this
respect, the applicant provides no persuasive evidence  that  she  was
awarded insufficient credit for her education and work experience  and
was erroneously accessed in the grade of 1LT.   She  was  awarded  one
year for her education and two years for her  work  experience,  which
did not begin towards 1LT until after she had completed her BSN in Jan
77.  All available documentation  indicates  the  applicant  knew  the
Reserve appointment tendered to her was for the grade of 1LT and  that
she would enter EAD in that grade.  The  applicant’s  eligibility  for
promotion to major, lieutenant colonel,  and  colonel  are  contingent
upon her entry grade.  As we agree with HQ AFPC/DPAMF2  that  she  was
properly accessed as a 1LT, we see no entitlement for promotion boards
for major, lieutenant colonel, or colonel.   Even  had  the  applicant
been accessed as a captain, which we are not advocating, there  is  no
evidence suggesting she would have  been  selected  for  promotion  to
major, lieutenant colonel, and colonel as she  assumes.   Further,  as
contended by HQ AFPC/DPPPOO, granting her direct  promotion  to  these
grades would be  unfair  to  all  other  officers  who  had  extremely
competitive records and also  were  not  promoted.   As  for  the  two
contested OERs, the applicant has not established to our  satisfaction
that they should be voided.  The  supporting  statements  were  noted;
however, they did not convince us these two  reports  were  inaccurate
assessments of the applicant’s performance during the relevant  rating
periods or were otherwise flawed  in  some  way  that  warrants  their
removal.  We believe this issue has been appropriately addressed by HQ
AFPC/DPPPEP, and we agree with their rationale and recommendation.  In
addition, HQ AFPC/DPPRRP noted the record reflected the applicant  did
not have the required active service to qualify  for  an  active  duty
retirement under the provisions of either Title 10, USC, Section 8911,
or the TERA.  In the final analysis, the applicant’s  claim  that  she
would have ultimately been  promoted  to  the  grade  of  colonel  and
retired for length of service had all  the  alleged  “errors”  in  her
record  not  occurred  is  pure  speculation   requiring   a   massive
unwarranted rewriting of history based on  the  assumption  her  entry
grade should have been captain and her subsequent  performance  record
would have guaranteed successive promotions and a 20-year career.  The
offices  of  primary  responsibility  have  adequately  addressed  the
applicant’s  contentions  and  we  agree  with  their   opinions   and
recommendations that she  has  not  sustained  her  burden  of  having
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.

_________________________________________________________________

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 21 June 2006 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Ms. B. J. White-Olson, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Barbara R. Murray, Member
                 Ms. Debra K. Walker, Member

The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2005-03901 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 Dec 05, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPAMF2, dated 18 Jan 06.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant, dated 22 Jan 06, w/atchs.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPAMF2, dated 8 Feb 06.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPOO, dated 10 Apr 06.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 12 Apr 06.
   Exhibit H.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRRP, dated 24 Apr 06, w/atch.
   Exhibit I.  Letter, HQ AFPC/JA, dated 9 May 06.
   Exhibit J.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 May 06.
   Exhibit K.  Letter, Applicant, dated 1 Jun 06, w/atch.




                                   B. J. WHITE-OLSON
                                   Panel Chair