RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00516
		COUNSEL:  NONE
			HEARING DESIRED:  NO


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  Her Officer Selection Brief (OSB) be corrected to reflect 
Intermediate Developmental Education (IDE) equivalency credit.

2.  She be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant 
colonel by the Calendar Year (CY) 2013A Central Selection Board 
(CSB).


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She attended the Naval Post Graduate School and earned her Master 
of Business Administration (MBA) in 2006.  In 2010, she was told 
IDE equivalency credit would be automatic upon her completion of 
the Air Command and Staff College (ACSC) correspondence course.  
She attempted to ascertain requirements for IDE equivalency credit 
prior to her In-the-Promotion Zone (IPZ) lieutenant colonel board.  
However, she was informed she had not met the IDE Board and was 
ineligible for IDE equivalency credit.

In support of her requests, the applicant provides copies of her AF 
IMT 475, Education/Training Report and a memorandum from the 
Director, AFGSC A5/8/9, stating that his predecessor endorsed the 
applicant for IDE equivalency credit in 2011; however, they have 
been unable to locate any correspondence indicating whether her 
package was boarded or approved.  He further states that he 
believes the applicant completed all requirements for IDE 
equivalency credit and recommends the Board evaluate her records.

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in the 
grade of major (0-4).

According to the applicant’s Voluntary Separation Application time 
stamped 9 April 2009, her request for a separation date of 
1 January 2010, was approved.

The Voluntary Separation Application time stamped 9 September 2009, 
indicates the applicant’s family situation had changed since she 
originally submitted her separation request.  Therefore, the 
commander determined it was in the best interest of the Air Force 
to keep her on active duty and approved her request to withdraw her 
request for separation.

According to an AF Form 899, Request and Authorization for 
Permanent Change of Station - Military, dated 21 October 2013, the 
applicant had a report not later than date of 18 November 2013, to 
her pending assignment to Louisiana.

In a letter dated 26 June 2014, the applicant was notified that she 
was considered, but not selected for promotion to the grade of 
lieutenant colonel by the CSB.  However, she was selected for 
continuation by the Major Selective Continuation Board.


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPAPP recommends denial.  While the applicant was nominated 
for equivalency by her senior rater in both 2010 and 2011, she was 
not subsequently recommended for equivalency credit by the 
respective Developmental Team (DT).  As a result she would not have 
been considered nor approved for equivalency credit by the 
Developmental Education Designation Board (DEDB) and the AF/Al.  
Even if she had been recommended for equivalency credit by her DT 
and given conditional approval by the DEDB and AF/Al, she would 
have had to complete ACSC via distance learning during her window 
of eligibility (2009-2011).  She completed this distance learning 
requirement in 2012, thus still would have remained ineligible for 
equivalency credit.  This process is explained in AFI 36-2301, 
Developmental Education and Personnel Service Delivery Memorandum 
11-19.

The complete DPAPP evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

She made career-impacting decisions in 2007-2009, due to her 
mother’s Alzheimer’s diagnosis.  She takes responsibility for 
these actions, but hopes to convince the Board that not all of the 
impacts are warranted.

In December 2006, she earned an MBA from the Naval Post Graduate 
School in Systems Acquisitions Management; then, received a 
"Definitely Promote" on her promotion recommendation form to the 
grade of major.

In the fall of 2007, her mother was diagnosed with Alzheimer's. 
She was unable to speak to her mother’s doctor to attain a 
humanitarian re-assignment.  Therefore, she opted to separate from 
the Air Force to help care for her mother.  Notwithstanding her 
approved separation date, she continued to give 100 percent to the 
Air Force.  However, she declined career progression opportunities 
so as not to take opportunities from fellow airmen.  At the time, 
she also chose not to enroll in ACSC.

In April 2009, the Air Force activated the Air Force Global Strike 
Command in Louisiana.  Her leadership asked her to consider 
withdrawing her separation paperwork.  Consequently, in September 
2009, she withdrew her separation paperwork and received an 
assignment to Louisiana.  She spoke with her supervisor about 
applying for IDE equivalency credit and he advised her that it 
would be automatic.  Ultimately, she takes full responsibility for 
not confirming the process.  The DPAPP letter dated 16 April 2014, 
stated “Even if you had been recommended for equivalency credit by 
your Developmental Team and given conditional approval by the DEDB 
and AF/Al, you would have had to complete Air Command and Staff 
College via distance learning during your window of eligibility 
(2009-2011).”  AFI 36-2301, Table 1 Note 5 states, majors are 
eligible for IDE “Until considered In-the-Promotion-Zone for 
lieutenant colonel.”  Her peers met the IDE selection boards in 
2009, 2010 and 2011.  She did not meet the IDE board in 2009, 
because she had a valid date of separation.  Her primary board for 
lieutenant colonel met in 2013; she completed ACSC in 2012 and has 
applied (concurrent with this letter) for IDE credit.

She realizes she made decisions which have had irreversible and 
adverse effects on her career.  She does not regret the decisions; 
they were the “right thing” to do at the time.

In further support of her requests, the applicant provides a letter 
of support from her former commander.

Her 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.  While the 
applicant’s comments in response to the Air Force evaluation are 
duly noted, we do not find her assertions sufficiently persuasive 
to override the rational provided by the Air Force Office of 
Primary Responsibility (OPR).  Therefore, we agree with the 
opinion and recommendation of the Air Force OPR and adopt the 
rationale expressed as the basis for our conclusion the applicant 
has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  In the absence 
of evidence to the contrary, we find no 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 9 December 2014, under the provisions of AFI 
36-2603:

      , Panel Chair
      , Member
      , Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR BC-2014-
00516 was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 29 January 2014, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPAPP, dated 16 April 2014, w/atch.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 May 2014.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 13 June 2014, w/atch.