Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00409
Original file (BC 2014 00409.txt) Auto-classification: Approved
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00409

   						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her date of rank (DOR) to the grade of captain (O-3) be changed from 14 Jan 14 to 30 May 13. 


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Due to an error in calculating her constructive service credit, the DOR and grade in which she was accessed into the Air Force, were unjustly changed in violation of her commissioning contract.  She was initially accessed as a captain on 17 Aug 13 with a DOR of 30 May 13.  However, on 24 Nov 13, her grade was inappropriately changed to first lieutenant.  When she was subsequently promoted to captain, her DOR to captain became 14 Jan 14. 

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Under Reserve EAD Order AH-115, dated 2 Aug 13, the applicant was ordered to extended active duty (EAD) on 17 Aug 13 to attend the Commissioned Officer Training (COT) course during the period 20 Aug 13 through 20 Sep 13. 

Under Reserve Appointment Order D-0719, dated 7 Aug 13, the applicant was appointed to the grade of captain with a date of appointment of 30 May 13, based upon the constructive service credit (CSC) she was awarded at that time. 

On 13 Jan 14, Reserve EAD order AH-115 and Reserve Appointment Order D-0719 were amended to change her grade from captain to first lieutenant (O-2), based upon a recalculation of her CSC.  Due to the recalculation, she was granted Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration for promotion to the grade of captain on the CY13 Captain selection process. 


The applicant was selected for promotion to the grade of captain by the CY14 Captain Selection Board, and promoted to captain on 9 Jul 14. 

The applicant was subsequently selected for promotion to the grade of captain by the CY13 Captain SSB.  The promotion list for the CY13 Captain SSB was approved on 14 Jan 14.  

Under Reserve Amendment Order SOJB-005760O, dated 12 Dec 14, the applicant’s date of rank and effective date of rank to the grade of captain were changed from 09 Jul 14 to 14 Jan 14. 

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memoranda prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibits C, D, and E.    


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPAN recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an injustice warranting a correction.  The applicant was erroneously awarded dual or overlapping CSC for the period of time she pursued her Master’s in Nursing degree and her professional work experience.  The miscalculation resulted in the applicant being appointed to active duty in the inappropriate grade.  AFI 36-2005 states “in computing service; count a period of time or qualification only once.”  To be eligible for appointment in the grade of captain, the applicant’s awarded service credit must be at least four years but less than 14 years.  When the applicant’s CSC was computed, she was given double credit for a period of time during which she was both pursing her Master’s Degree and for her professional work experience, resulting in her receiving 4 years, 8 months, and 23 days CSC.  In Nov 13, DPAN realized she had been credited twice for the same period of time, and recalculated her CSC, resulting in her receiving 3 years, 8 months, and 23 days CSC.  Therefore, her appointment date/entry onto active duty was amended to reflect the correct grade of first lieutenant.  

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPAN evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPSOO recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an injustice warranting correction.  Per Title 10 United States Code (USC) §531, the original appointment in the grade of captain in the Regular Air Force shall be made by the President alone.  This authority has been further delegated to the SECDEF under Executive Order 13384.  By law, an officer may not have a DOR or effective date prior to approval of their appointment by the SECDEF.  Based upon the CY14 Captain Selection process, the applicant was promoted to captain on 9 Jul 14, the date approved by the SECDEF.  She also met an SSB for the CY13 Captain Promotion process.  Upon approval of the SSB results, her DOR to captain was changed from 9 Jul 14 to 14 Jan 14, the date the CY13 SSB promotion list was approved by the SECDEF.  Had she initially been properly accessed as a first lieutenant, the DOR of 14 Jan 14 would have been her DOR to captain.  

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOO evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/JA recommends partially granting the applicant’s request.  The applicant’s CSC was originally miscalculated.  AFPC/DPAN caught the error and made the mathematical recalculation.  However, AFPC/DPAN did not have the authority to change her appointment date and EAD DOR merely by issuing her an administrative amendment to her EAD orders.  In accordance with Title 10 USC §12203(a), original appointments of commissioned officers in the Reserve of the Air Force in the rank of lieutenant colonel and below are made by the President.  By Executive Order (13358) that authority has been delegated to the SECDEF.  To effect the appointment of a reserve officer, DODI 1310.02, Original Appointment of Officers, requires that a person must be appointed in the grade authorized (the applicant was appointed in the Nurse Corps, Air Force Reserve, in the rank of captain, on 30 May 13) and subscribe to the oath of office.  The date the oath of office is signed is the effective date of the appointment.  Once a commission is complete, distinct authority and regulatory guidance govern removal of a commissioned officer from office.  In this case, AFPC/DPAN effectively “voided” the applicant’s appointment to captain because the officer had insufficient CSC to have been appointed in that grade.  However, once the applicant had completed the commissioning process, AFPC no longer retained any authority to effectively nullify the appointment to captain and substitute an appointment to first lieutenant.  Thus, the amendment to the applicant’s EAD orders that changed her DOR and grade from captain to first lieutenant was null and void and without any lawful authority and it is, therefore, of no legal effect.  The original appointment remains valid, not having been terminated by proper authority.  The fact the applicant still has a valid Reserve appointment to captain on 30 Jul 13 (sic), however, does not mean her DOR should be corrected to that date.  Because the applicant was a Reserve officer who first entered EAD with a regular commission, her initial current grade date of rank (CGDOR) as a commissioned officer entering active duty is the date of that appointment.  In the applicant’s case, that date was 17 Aug 13.  Recommend the applicant’s record be corrected to show she had sufficient CSC as of the date of her initial reserve appointment to qualify for her appointment as a captain, that she was appointed as a reserve captain on 30 Jul 13 (sic), and she entered EAD on 17 Aug 13 as a captain, with a DOR to the grade of captain of 17 Aug 13, her EAD date.  

A complete copy of the AFPC/JA evaluation is at Exhibit D.



APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 23 Apr 15 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit F).  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.


THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an injustice.  After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s complete submission, we believe the applicant is the victim of an error or injustice.  While we note the comments of AFPC/DPAN and AFPC/DPSOO indicating relief should be denied because the applicant’s CSC was initially computed incorrectly, we agree with AFPC/JA’s position that once the applicant completed the commissioning process, AFPC no longer retained any authority to effectively nullify her appointment to captain, and her initial appointment is still valid, and the amendment to the applicant’s EAD orders which changed her DOR and grade from captain to first lieutenant is null and void and without any lawful authority, and it is, therefore, of no legal effect.  Therefore, we recommend the applicant’s records be corrected to reflect that she was credited with sufficient CSC as of the date of her initial Reserve appointment to qualify for her appointment as a captain.  This would make the original date she was appointment to the grade of captain, 30 May 13, correct, and her date of rank to captain would be the date she entered extended active duty.  However, while we are adopting the AFPC/JA rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has been the victim of an error and injustice, we believe the 30 Jul 13 effective date described in the AFPC/JA advisory is incorrect and that the effective date of the appointment is actually 30 May 13, the date the applicant signed her oath of office.  Therefore, we recommend the applicant’s records be corrected as indicated below.  


THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to the APPLICANT be corrected to show that competent authority approved sufficient constructive service credit to qualify her for appointment to the grade of captain in the Reserve of the Air Force on 30 May 2013, and she was accessed onto Extended Active Duty (EAD) in said grade on 17 August 2013.


The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-00409 in Executive Session on 14 May 15 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

All members voted to correct the records as recommended.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 11 Feb 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPAN, dated 6 Feb 15, w/atchs.
	Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOO, dated 2 Apr 15.
      Exhibit E.  Memorandum, AFPC/JA, dated 14 Apr 15.
      Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Apr 15.

						








Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01434

    Original file (BC 2014 01434.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01434 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her entry/commissioning grade be changed to Captain (Capt/O-3) rather than First Lieutenant (1Lt/02). AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFRS/RSO recommends approval for the Air Force to issue back pay and rank credit to the grade of captain. THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00654

    Original file (BC 2014 00654.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandums prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibits C and D. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPAN defers to AFPC Service Dates Verification Office to address/validate the applicant’s first lieutenant DOR, but does provide information pertaining the applicant’s appointment in the grade of first lieutenant. In accordance with AFI 36-2008, she received 50...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05070

    Original file (BC 2013 05070.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPAN recommends denial of the applicant’s request for an additional five to six months of constructive service credit (CSC) for her professional experiences prior to entering active duty or receiving a commission. Notwithstanding the recommendation to deny the applicant’s...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01441

    Original file (BC-2012-01441.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Upon reentering the military in the BSC, she was initially awarded two full years of credit without specifying which dates were the dates for which she received the educational credit. Per USC Title 10, “A period of time shall be counted only once when computing constructive service credit.” To prevent awarding service credit for the same period of time for her commissioned military service time and time spent earning her MPH degree, DPAFM2 must subtract her two years of educational credit...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05379

    Original file (BC 2013 05379.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-5379 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to reflect he was appointed in the grade of lieutenant colonel (O-5), instead of major (O-4), effective 5 Nov 13, the date the Senate confirmed his appointment as a lieutenant colonel in the Air Force. The Air Force Recruiting Service (AFRS) negotiated his commission/entry to active duty...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03901

    Original file (BC-2005-03901.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. 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. Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 22 Jan 06, w/atchs.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2000 | 9801533

    Original file (9801533.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    However, the Air Force would only grant half-time for work experience and, because the NCA and ASCP were the only certifying agencies accepted by the Air Force, would only credit her work experience from Aug 93 when she received her certification from the ASCP. The applicant was advised of the CSC computation error and the change in grade and pay. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 12 Sep 99, w/atchs CHARLENE M. BRADLEY Panel Chair AFBCMR 98-01533 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC 2010 00051

    Original file (BC 2010 00051.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2012 | BC-2011-03684

    Original file (BC-2011-03684.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force, which are at Exhibits C, D, and E. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIPV recommends denial, indicating the applicant’s DOR was originally established incorrectly by AFPC and corrected in accordance with the provisions of AFI 36-2604, Service Dates and Dates of Rank. An audit of officer...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00087

    Original file (BC-2013-00087.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) General Counsel determined the appointment date is the date SECDEF approves the appointment or the date the oath was administered, whichever is later. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant agrees with the recommendation in the advisory opinion; however, she believes that the errors in her record caused by the break in service may have led to her nonselection for...