RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2008-01146
            INDEX NUMBER:  104.00
            COUNSEL:  MR. MCCORMACK

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  Her discharge from the Air Force be declared void and she be  reinstated
to active duty in the grade of major (04), with an Air Force Specialty  Code
(AFSC) of M46N3H, Clinical Nurse, Family Nurse Specialist.

2.  She  receive  all  pay  and  allowances,   entitlements,   rights,   and
privileges affected by her separation on 1 Jul 05.

3.  She be provided any and all relief deemed appropriate, or to  which  she
would otherwise be entitled.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She maintained a stellar record until  she  was  assigned  to  Maxwell  AFB,
Alabama in May 2002.  She was placed  under  tremendous  stress  to  see  an
excessive number of patients on  a  daily  basis  and  began  to  experience
symptoms of depression and medical conditions that were exacerbated  by  the
stress of the  tempo.   She  was  eventually  diagnosed  with  sleep  apnea.
Instead  of  receiving  assistance  and   support,   she   was   criticized,
ostracized, and treated with contempt by her supervisors.

She sought to be reassigned to a base closer to her mother in  Texas,  after
her mother’s diagnosis of Alzheimer’s.  Due to the issuance  of  the  Letter
of Reprimand (LOR), reassignment was no longer an option and  she  submitted
documentation to voluntarily separate from the Air Force.

Since she voluntarily requested separation, she had the  right  to  withdraw
her request as long as she followed the guidelines contained within AFI  36-
3207, Separating Commissioned Officers.  She  followed  the  guidelines  and
submitted her request to withdraw her request 88 days  before  the  date-of-
separation (DOS).

The Military Personnel Flight (MPF) was required to notify the  headquarters
to withhold processing the request for  separation  until  the  request  for
withdrawal was received, and a request made to process them  both  together.
These actions did not take place and her request to withdraw the  separation
application was never forwarded or processed by headquarters.  She  was  not
under investigation, she had not been charged with any  misconduct  and  she
had not refused an assignment.  A voluntary  request  to  separate  is  just
that and can be withdrawn at any time by the requester as long as  it  meets
the criteria established under the guidelines, which  is  exactly  what  she
did.

The Air Force failed  to  properly  process  her  request  to  withdraw  her
voluntary request to separate.

The Board should review her petition and the character  statements  included
and rectify this error.

In support of the  appeal,  the  applicant  submits  a  statement  from  her
counsel, and other documentation associated with her request.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant was commissioned a second lieutenant in the Regular Air  Force
and was progressively promoted to the grade of major.

On 8 Aug 03, she received a Letter  of  Counseling  (LOC),  for  failure  to
complete Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) on her subordinates in a  timely
manner.  On 2 Sep 03,  she  submitted  a  letter  of  rebuttal  to  the  LOC
accepting full responsibility for not accomplishing the  OPRs  in  a  timely
manner.

0n 11 Sep 03, she received an LOR for planning for  a  permissive  temporary
duty without assuring that her primary mission would be accomplished  before
she left the office.  On 14 Sep 03, she submitted a rebuttal to the LOR.

On 17 Nov  03,  she  was  diagnosed  with  Dysthymia  and  Major  Depressive
Disorder.  Her civilian physician  recommended  she  see  no  more  than  22
patients per day to adequately help her achieve her treatment goals.  On  20
Nov 03, she requested that her  patient  load  remain  set  at  22  and  not
include the three appointments for provider  book  only  as  suggested,  but
stated she would abide by her psychologist’s recommendation.

On 14 Feb 05,  she  received  an  LOR,  for  conduct  and  behavior  out  of
conformance with what is expected of an officer and a  healthcare  provider.


On 14 Feb 05,  an  Unfavorable  Information  File  was  established  on  the
applicant.

On 17 Feb 05, she requested assistance from  her  Congressman  to  help  her
separate from the Air Force as soon as possible.

On 1 Mar  05,  she  was  notified  of  a  Commander-Directed  Mental  Health
Evaluation.

On 1 Mar 05, she requested voluntary separation to be  effective  1 Sep  05.
Her request was approved and her DOS was established as 1 Sep 05.   Her  DOS
was subsequently adjusted to 1 Jul 05, which was 120 days from the  date  of
her request for separation, since  she  had  an  assignment  selection  date
(ASD) of 30 Nov 04.

On 29 Mar 05, she was diagnosed with a depressive disorder and her  provider
recommended she be returned to duty.

On 14 Apr 05, the applicant requested a  Congressional  Inquiry  of  the  42
Medical Group.  She explained that she was reconsidering her action  because
she had over 17 years in the Air  Force  and  could  be  eligible  for  full
retirement benefits at 20 years.

On 4 May 05, the applicant requested withdrawal of her voluntary  separation
request.  On 18 May 05,  the  Wing  Commander  disapproved  her  request  to
withdraw her separation.  He noted  the  numerous  documented  instances  of
substandard duty performance and her inappropriate  unprofessional  conduct.
He also opined that it was in the best interest of the Air  Force  that  she
be separated as she originally requested.

On 1 Jul 05, she was honorably discharged from all  appointments  under  the
provisions of  AFI  36-3207  (Completion  of  Required  Service).   She  was
credited with 16 years, 10 months, and 13 days active service.

The  applicant’s  Officer  Performance  Report  (OPR)  profile  since   2000
follows:

             PERIOD ENDINGS             OVERALL EVALUATION

       15 May 00                      MS
       15 May 01                      MS
       15 May 02                      MS
       15 May 03                      MS
       15 May 04                      MS
      *15 May 05                      MS

*Referral OPR

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPAMN states there must be no confusion as to whether the  applicant
will be able to be credentialed or practice as a Family  Nurse  Practitioner
(FNP) if she is being considered  for  reinstatement  to  active  duty.   If
there is any indication she will not be able to  practice  as  a  FNP,  this
should be taken into consideration.

The complete DPAMN evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPSOS  recommends  denial.  DPSOS  indicates  that  approval   of   the
applicant’s DOS and the subsequent disapproval of her  request  to  withdraw
her  DOS  was  processed  in  accordance  with  the  governing   Air   Force
Instructions and guidance, and was within the discretion of  the  separation
authority.  There is no evidence the denial of  her  DOS  was  arbitrary  or
capricious.  The  denial  of  her  request  to  withdraw  her  DOS  was  not
determined to be in the best interest of the Air Force and did not meet  the
stringent criteria for withdrawal under hardship provisions.

Since the applicant had an assignment selection date (ASD) of 30 Nov 04,  in
accordance with (IAW) Military Personnel  Flight  Memorandum  (MPFM)  04-35,
dated 11 Aug 04, attachment 9, she was required to separate  with  120  days
from the date she applied/requested separation.  The  ASD  is  the  date  an
officer enters into an assignment cycle and does  not  necessarily  mean  an
officer was selected or declined an assignment.   The  applicant’s  DOS  was
properly established in accordance with the MPFM.

The applicant’s counsel states the applicant’s request  for  withdrawal  was
not properly processed and since her request for separation  was  voluntary,
she had the right to withdraw her request for separation.

This assertion is incorrect, AFI 36-3207, Separating Commissioned  Officers,
addresses  the  procedures  for  an  officer  to  request  withdrawal  of  a
separation, it does not provide for a  right  or  entitlement  to  withdraw.
The decision as to whether a request for withdrawal is approved  depends  on
the needs and the best interest of the Air  Force,  or  in  the  case  of  a
hardship, whether the  officer  has  provided  sufficient  justification  to
substantiate the hardship.

Since DPSOS is only required to  maintain  documentation  of  a  disapproved
application for one year from the date of the disapproval, records  relating
to the applicant’s withdrawal request have been destroyed.

However,  during  the  time  the  applicant  requested  separation  and  her
subsequent request to  withdraw  her  approved  separation,  the  Air  Force
implemented several programs designed to  achieve  congressionally  mandated
active duty end strength requirements.
The MPFM 04-35, attachment 11, paragraph 11, addressed requests to  withdraw
or change retirement or separation  dates  and  stated  withdrawal  requests
would only be considered for hardship reasons.

DPSOS  was  unable  to  confirm  whether  the  applicant  had  declined   an
assignment, only that she had an ASD  which  preceded  her  application  for
separation.   However,  since  she  had  an  ASD,  her  DOS  was   correctly
established IAW AFI 36-3207 and MPFM 04-35.

The complete DPSOS evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

She is fully  able  to  achieve  credentialing  in  the  Air  Force  medical
treatment faculty and  fully  capable  of  practicing  as  a  FNP.   She  is
currently board certified in Alabama and Texas, and by the  American  Nurses
Credentialing Center.

AFPC/DPAMN does not address her ability to function and perform  as  a  FNP,
rather it addresses her uneasiness at returning  to  duty  at  Maxwell  AFB,
Alabama, into the same environment that was the catalyst  for  her  wrongful
treatment and separation.  Her records were beyond reproach  until  she  was
assigned to Maxwell AFB, as evidenced by her OPRs.

In regard to the AFPC/DPSOS advisory opinion, she  was  not  separated  from
the Air Force under the provisions stated.  Her separation was not based  on
any assignment or training that she failed to accept.

She made every effort to secure an assignment to leave Maxwell AFB  and  her
current assignment.

She did not indicate to her Congressman  that  she  refused  an  assignment.
Rather, her Congressman notified her that he was advised by  the  Air  Force
that she refused an assignment.

The advisory opinion fails to take into consideration that  she  received  a
LOR and referral OPR, which made her  ineligible  for  an  assignment.   She
requested a humanitarian assignment to be in close proximity to  her  mother
who was suffering from Alzheimer’s, and her request  was  disapproved.   She
then requested a special/humanitarian assignment to San Antonio, Texas,  but
after she was counseled and received the LOR was advised that her  name  was
being withdrawn for the transfer.

The DPSOS advisory opinion references MPFM 04-35, attachment  11,  paragraph
11, as a basis that  her  request  to  withdraw  her  resignation  would  be
disapproved.  The reference  applies  to  members  requesting  acceleration,
extension, or to withdraw for  the  best  interest  of  the  Air  Force  for
permissive TDY and terminal leave or  last  minute  job  availability.   Her
request was not for the best interest of the  Air  Force  and  she  was  not
requesting to withdraw her  resignation  request  for  any  of  the  reasons
listed under that reference.

On 1 Jun 05, she was advised that her request to  withdraw  her  resignation
had  been  received  and  was  being   processed.    That   was   the   last
correspondence she received concerning her request to withdraw  her  request
for separation.  She never received a final  determination  on  her  request
and no record has been found of the original  submission,  and  the  request
was never processed through the Air Force Personnel Center as required.

The bottom line is that she was not eligible for any assignment and she  did
not decline an assignment.  She sought reassignment to  another  base.   Her
AFSC was not overmanned at the time  of  her  resignation  request,  bonuses
were being paid for FNPs to extend their service and  have  increased  since
her separation.

She submitted her request to withdraw her resignation in  a  timely  manner.
However, it was not processed through the  MPF.   AFI  36-3207,  Chapter  2,
paragraph 2-30 requires MPFs to send a message or data fax to  personnel  at
commanders of headquarters asking them to hold  a  pending  resignation  for
which an officer has requested withdrawal and send  the  withdrawal  request
endorsed by the commander, and a copy  of  the  resignation  to  AFPC/DPPRS.
This action never took place, nor was her resignation placed on  hold  until
a decision was made.

She was entitled to have her request addressed through proper  channels  and
a final determination be given to her prior to any additional  action  being
taken.  She desired to remain in the Air Force, and she  was  and  still  is
fully qualified to perform her duties as a FNP.

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit F.

______________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial indicating that  although  she
has not requested a medical separation or retirement as  once  suggested  by
her civilian psychologist, the BCMR Medical Consultant finds no evidence  of
record that would have triggered or justified  a  Medical  Evaluation  Board
(MEB) or referral to a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB).   Although  she  had
been also reportedly  diagnosed  with  fibromyalgia  and  obstructive  sleep
apnea, neither of these conditions  were  considered  duty-limiting  to  the
extent  that  would  have  cut  short  her  career,  were  she  not  already
separating, or if allowed to withdraw  her  resignation.   Thus,  the  final
hurdle will be to determine if she suffers a disqualifying medical  disorder
that would preclude a return to  active  military  service,  a  particularly
important  hurdle  in  the  context  of  the  high  operational  tempo   and
unrelenting mental stressors currently confronting all military members.

According to the Medical Consultant, there is no evidence  of  an  error  or
injustice,  from  a  medical  standpoint,   that   independently   justifies
directing the restoration of the applicant to active military service.

The BCMR Medical Consultant’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit G.

______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant, through counsel, indicates that she is  capable  of  securing
the necessary credentials and is fully capable of practicing  as  a  FNP  if
she is reinstated to active duty.

She  did  not  decline  an  assignment  and  she  attempted  to   secure   a
humanitarian assignment to San Antonio.  She received an LOR and a  referral
OPR, which made her ineligible for transfer of any kind.  She requested  her
resignation application be withdrawn and the application was  not  processed
in accordance with governing instructions.

Counsel’s complete response is at Exhibit I.

______________________________________________________________

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.  The applicant’s  complete  submission  was
thoroughly reviewed and her contentions were duly  noted.   However,  we  do
not find her assertions and the documentation submitted in  support  of  her
appeal  sufficiently  persuasive  to  override  the  rationale  provided  by
AFPC/DPSOS and the Medical Consultant, who, in  our  view,  have  adequately
addressed the issues raised by the applicant.  Therefore, in the absence  of
sufficient evidence to the contrary, we agree with recommendations  of  both
and adopt their rationale as the basis for our decision  the  applicant  has
failed to sustain her burden of establishing that she  has  suffered  either
an error or an injustice.  Accordingly,  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-2008-01146
in Executive Session on 29 Jul 09, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Joseph D. Yount, Panel Chair
      Ms. Barbara J. Barger, Member
      Mr. Grover L. Dunn, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered under  Docket  Number  BC-
2008-01146:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 9 Mar 08, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, DPAMN, dated 14 Oct 08.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 4 Feb 09, w/atchs.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Feb 09.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Counsel, dated 6 Mar 09, w/atchs.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 14 May 09.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 May 09.
    Exhibit I.  Letter, Counsel, dated 23 Jun 09.






                                 JOSEPH D. YOUNT