RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-02004
            INDEX CODE: 126.04, 131.01
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  8 Jan 08

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

She be afforded Special Selection Board (SSB)  consideration  for  the
Fiscal Year 2007  (FY07)  Line  and  Health  Professions  (LHP)  Major
Selection Board with the Article 15 imposed  on  15 May  03,  and  the
Unfavorable Information File (UIF) established on 27 May  03,  removed
from her Officer Selection Record (OSR), and,  if  necessary,  she  be
credited with full participation for FY07.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She did not know she could request removal of  the  Article  15  after
meeting the in-the-promotion-zone (IPZ) promotion  board.   She  would
have had a chance to be promoted if the Article 15  and  UIF  had  not
been in her OSR.  The UIF should have  had  a  two,  rather  than  the
erroneous four, year disposition  date.   She  recently  got  the  UIF
disposition date corrected and the UIF removed.

In support of her  request,  applicant  provided  a  letter  from  her
current commander, along with other documents related to the  UIF  and
promotion  deferrals.   The  applicant’s  complete  submission,   with
attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

AFI 36-2608, Military Personnel Record  System,  indicates  lieutenant
colonels and below may request removal of an  Article  15  through  an
appeal  process  after  one  IPZ  or  above-the-promotion-zone   (APZ)
consideration.  The appeal must  be  submitted  to  the  commander  or
review authority who originally directed the Article 15’s placement in
the OSR, or successor in command.  The
removal of the Article 15 requires a request from the member  and  the
approval by the commander or successor in command.  An Article 15 will
remain in the OSR until the officer retires,  separates,  or  dies  if
that officer does not appeal to have the Article 15 removed  from  the
OSR after an IPZ or APZ consideration.

On 15 May 03, the 21st Air Force commander at McGuire AFB, NJ, imposed
nonjudicial punishment on the applicant in the form of a reprimand and
forfeiture of $500 in pay for two months for shoplifting items  valued
at a total of $24.06 from the Charleston AFB Exchange in SC on  18 Apr
03.  The applicant had consulted counsel, waived her right  to  court-
martial, and submitted a written presentation; however,  she  did  not
appeal

On 27 May 03, the commander filed the Article 15  in  the  applicant’s
UIF.  The AF Form 1137, UIF Summary, reflected a disposition  date  of
4 Jun 07.  On 30 Jun 03, the commander filed the  Article  15  in  the
applicant’s HQ USAF Selection Record  and  Officer  Command  Selection
Record.    The   applicant   did   not   submit   correspondence   for
consideration.

On 15 Oct 03, the Vice Commander of the Air Mobility Command  (AMC/CV)
recommended the applicant’s name be removed  from  the  Calendar  Year
2002B (CY02B) Nurse Corps Major Promotion List and Regular  Air  Force
Appointment List, citing the Article 15.

The applicant was considered IPZ but not  selected  by  the  FY06  LHP
Major Selection Board, which convened on 7 Feb  05.   The  requirement
for meeting one IPZ promotion before requesting removal of the Article
15 was fulfilled when the applicant met this board.

She was also nonselected by the FY07 LHP Major  Selection  Board  that
convened on 6 Feb 06.

On 2 May 06, HQ ARPC/DPP notified  the  applicant  that,  due  to  her
second deferral for promotion and in accordance with  Title  10,  USC,
Section 14505, she had an adjusted mandatory separation date of  1 Nov
06.

Based on an email to the  applicant’s  squadron  from  HQ  ARPC/DPAFT,
dated 18 May 06, the UIF’s disposition date was changed from 4 Jun  07
to 4 Jun 05.

[Note:  Pursuant to an inquiry by  the  AFBCMR  Staff,  HQ  ARPC/DPBPP
confirmed by a 16 Aug 06 email that the applicant  had  not  filed  an
appeal through her chain of command at McGuire AFB and the Article  15
was still in her selection record.

The applicant is currently serving in the Reserve grade of captain  as
an individual mobilization augmentee (IMA) nurse at the  97th  Medical
Operations Squadron at Altus AFB, OK, with a mandatory DOS  of  1  Nov
06.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ ARPC/DPB recommends denial.  The 27 May 03 notification  of  intent
to file the Article 15 in the applicant’s OSR referred to AFI  36-2608
regarding Article 15 procedures.  The applicant’s  first  board  after
IPZ consideration convened on 6 Feb 06.  She had ample opportunity  to
review the regulation and appeal to remove the Article 15 prior to the
convening of the board.  With regard to her promotion opportunity,  no
one factor alone is the  basis  for  selection/nonselection;  however,
performance and  performance-based  potential  as  documented  by  all
performance evaluations appears to be a strong factor.  A promotion is
not  a  reward  for  past  service  but  advancement  based  on   past
performance and future potential.

The complete HQ ARPC/DPB evaluation is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant contends she had no idea the original  disposition  date
was in error and she could have  requested  the  removal  of  her  UIF
before she met the Feb 06 [FY07] board during the long  and  extremely
busy period she was preparing a cross-country  move,  separating  from
active duty,  overcoming  procedural  hurdles  to  transition  to  the
Reserve, giving birth, and establishing herself as  a  valued  officer
and health care professional.  Had she known the original  Article  15
disposition date was erroneous, she would have worked  diligently  and
immediately to ensure its removal from her OSR  before  the  promotion
board convened.

A complete copy of applicant’s response 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 error or injustice.  We acknowledge the  UIF  had  an
erroneous disposition date,  which  has  since  been  administratively
changed from 4 Jun 07 to 4 Jun 05. The applicant appears to  link  the
erroneous UIF disposition date to her reason for not taking  steps  to
remove the Article 15 from her OSR.  However, the UIF disposition date
is essentially a separate issue from removing the Article 15 from  her
OSR.  The UIF is not part of the  OSR;  it’s  an  official  record  of
unfavorable information about an individual.  The UIF and all  of  its
documents/comments are maintained by the officer’s commander until the
final disposition date.  Removing an officer’s UIF does not remove the
derogatory data that may be filed in the OSR.  Further, the 27 May  03
notification of intent to file the nonjudicial punishment in  her  OSR
referred the applicant to AFI 36-2608.  She had ample  opportunity  to
review the regulation and appeal for the Article 15’s  removal  before
the FY07 board convened.  The applicant did not request the Article 15
be removed from her OSR after her nonselection by the FY06  LHP  Major
Selection Board and, according to HQ ARPC/DPBPP’s email to the  AFBCMR
Staff, has yet to file an appeal  through  her  chain  of  command  at
McGuire AFB.  While the 97th Medical Operations  Squadron  commander’s
supporting statement  was  noted,  we  are  disinclined  to  recommend
removing the Article 15 from the applicant’s OSR and affording her SSB
consideration for the FY07  board.   In  this  respect,  her  personal
problems did not relieve  her  from  exercising  reasonable  diligence
through a timely appeal for remedial action.  Therefore, 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.
In view of the above and absent 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  this  application  in
Executive Session on 13 September 2006 under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:

                 Mr. Michael J. Maglio, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Gary G. Sauner, Member
                 Ms. Teri G. Spoutz, Member

The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2006-02004 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 31 May 06, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Letter, HQ ARPC/DPB, dated 25 Jul 06.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Jul 06.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant, dated 18 Aug 06.




                                   MICHAEL J. MAGLIO
                                   Panel Chair