RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-00636
            INDEX NUMBER:  111.00
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  28 August 2007


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The AETC IMT 125, “Record of Administrative Training Action,” prepared
on her, dated 6 Jul 05, be revised in Section I, Block 2, “Summary” to
reflect:  “Failure to complete course of instruction  due  to  reasons
beyond student’s control resulting in her inability to attain  desired
level of effective patient care management in  time  allotted  by  the
program.”

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

In a three-page statement,  applicant  discusses  in  detail  why  the
summary on her AETC IMT 125 is incorrect.  She specifically  addresses
sentences two, three and four.  A short summary  of  her  comments  on
each sentence follows:

        a.  The performance issues referred to in sentence number  two
in the summary reading “multiple errors in the  provision  of  nursing
care…” were primarily time management in nature with  two  exceptions.
However, the two problems were brought to the attention of the  course
supervisor/attending physician and were not serious and did not result
in harm or unsafe patient care.

        b.  The academic deficiencies and performance  failures  noted
in sentence three could be construed as performance failures; however,
they should have been considered as lack  of  transition  support  and
inappropriate assignment of a qualified preceptor in a  non-supportive
setting, a program shortcoming.  It was confessed to her that she  did
not fail the program, the program failed her.

        c.  Regarding  the  statement,  “…  supervisor  and  dedicated
preceptor has worked diligently with her to  improve  her  performance
with  no  noticeable  improvement,”   applicant   states   there   was
considerable lack of proper scheduling for her experience  within  the
transition program.  Applicant discusses how her  program  failed  her
and the lack of support received from her preceptor.  She  notes  that
the actions taken in her case did not constitute diligence on the part
of the course supervisor nor any of her Rotation II acting preceptors.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

According  to  information  in  the  Military  Personnel  Data  System
(MilPDS) and  extracted  from  her  military  personnel  records,  the
applicant received a direct appointment as a nurse  in  the  grade  of
second lieutenant on 28 Feb 05.  She entered active duty  on   12  Mar
05.  She completed Commissioned Officer Training  on  14  Apr  05  and
entered the Nurse Transition Program (NTP) on  19  Apr  05.   She  was
disenrolled from the NTP on 6  Jul  05  due  to  academic  deficiency,
performance failure, and unsuitability.  She was discharged on  9  Sep
05 for failure to complete a course of instruction.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AETC/SGN recommends denial of the applicant’s requests.  They  note
that the evaluations and supportive documents  are  completely  intact
and correctly reflect the applicant’s performance.  They have included
five statements prepared by individuals involved with the  applicant’s
training.  One statement denies the author  stated  to  the  applicant
“You did not fail the program, the program failed you.”

The complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant responds by giving her perspective of the NTP and the future
selection of preceptors for the program.  She  responds  to  the  full
statements of her preceptors presently  on  file.   She  believes  the
statements were provoked and staged; and that her acting Major  failed
to respond to requests for changes  in  an  appropriate  and  integral
manner, as a result, she felt she had no recourse.

She was placed in a position of  disposition  and  a  case  was  built
around her as a result of  the  failings  of  the  program.   She  was
supposed to be afforded a nurse transition opportunity.   Instead  she
was thrown into a setting and criticized for what she  did  not  know.
She was a new graduate with no actual clinical experience  outside  of
an educational setting.  She was observed instead of trained, and then
a case built around her for time management errors for which  she  had
not been afforded the opportunity to gain skills in time management.

She did not get to this position in her life  by  being  ignorant  nor
incompetent, the fact that the transition program failed to afford her
the opportunity to transition from graduate to nurse  clinician  is  a
failing of the program, not her own.

Applicant provides a copy of a sixteen-page memorandum, regarding  her
response to derogatory NTP performance  issues  and  the  overall  NTP
academics and transition.

Applicant’s complete response, with attachment, is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

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.

_________________________________________________________________

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-2006-
00636 in Executive Session on 18 May 2006, under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:

      Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
      Mr. Gregory A. Parker, Member
      Ms. LeLoy W. Cottrell, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 14 Feb 06, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AETC/SGN, dated 12 Apr 06, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Apr 06.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 4 May 06, w/atch.




                                   MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
                                   Panel Chair