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
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-00960
After basic training, the applicant selected the Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) Surgical Service Apprentice and was assigned to Sheppard AFB for Surgical Service Phase I training. On 8 Sep 04, the commander concurred, noting the applicant’s inconsistencies with respect to her fear of blood, lack of desire to become a surgical technologist, and stated goal to become a midwife. On 28 Jan 05, the discharge authority directed the applicant’s honorable discharge for Conditions that Interfere...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150001606
The applicant requests correction of her records to show: * her additional skill identifier (ASI) 8A (Critical Care Nursing (CCN)) was reinstated * she is entitled to CCN specialty pay as a result of the correction 2. Part IVc(1)(Character) the comments: [Applicant] has demonstrated a lack of integrity on several occasions, failing to take responsibility for her actions when making serious errors. In March 2015, the applicant herself, in a response to a referred OER, admitted she had made...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02208
Based on a review of the facts, we agree she should have met an FEB after her elimination from FWQ training as an FEB would be the only correct action to evaluate retention in (or removal from) training, and qualification for continued aviation service. She failed two opportunities to complete fixed wing training and should have met an FEB. ____________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00351
The four test failures were evidence of her lack of motivation. The complete DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: While it is true she was counseled multiple times for her failures, she would like to make it clear that her academic deficiencies are not because of her lack of motivation. She failed this course, but it does not mean she would fail out of every course of study in the...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC 2010 00051
While the advisory noted she received proper and fair consideration for promotion, she believes there are not any AD commanders who would award a definitely promote recommendation to an individual whose record lacked career status, nonselections for promotion, intermediate PME, graduate degree, with a history as a Reserve member competing for promotion on AD with other Regular AF officers who are many years her junior by service time, DOR, total service and age. The applicant contends she...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02811
His performance to date did not warrant he be selected for reenlistment. On 7 Jan 05, the applicant’s commander concurred with the supervisor’s recommendation and nonselected him for reenlistment. At the end of the deferral period, the applicant received a letter stating his promotion had been placed in a withhold status because of his nonselection for reenlistment.
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01422
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01422 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her place of entry on active duty (PLEAD) be corrected to reflect Knoxville, Tennessee (TN). As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit C). We took notice of the applicants complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-03472
It was recommended she be allowed to retire on her established retirement date of 19 Aug 09. e. On 14 Sep 09, AFRC/A1 notified the RMG that since the applicant is currently retired that she would need to file for incapacitation pay with the AFBCMR. The complete AFRC/SG evaluation is at Exhibit H. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFRC/JA and AFRC/SG did not and are not practicing due diligence with regard...
AF | DRB | CY2007 | FD2006-00334
Advise applicant of the decision of the Board, the right to a personal appearancc withlwithout counsel, and the right to submit an application to the AFBCMR Names and votes will be made available to the applicant at the applicant's request. Attachment: Examiner's Brief DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD ANDREWS AFB, MD (Former AlC) (HGH AlC) 1. If you need more space, submit additional issues on an attachment.
AF | DRB | CY2007 | FD2007-00049
I X 78150-4742 AIR FORCE DlSCllARCE REVIEW BOARD 1535 COMMAND OR, EE WINC.,3RD rLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762 7002 AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00 (EF-V2) Previous edition will be used .. AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE CASE NUMBER FD-200,-00049 GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable, to change reason for discharge and to change the reenlistment code. 1 was in the Air Force and I failed the F-16 Tech School and they send (sic) me to Services and I...