DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

MEH
Docket No. 9600-09
19 Oct 10

 

 

This is in reference to your application for correction of your
naval record pursuant to the provisions of 10 USC 1552.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 12 October 2010. Your allegations of error and
injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative
regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this
Board. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted
of your application, together with all material submitted in
support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes,
regulations and policies. In addition, the Board considered the
advisory opinions furnished by BUMED memo 7220 Ser M1/10UM1-2565
of 15 Apr 10, and BUMED memo 1000 Ser M1/10UM1174 of 24 Aug 10,
copies of which are attached. The Board also considered your
comments made in reply to the advisory opinions.

The Board members also considered your request for a personal
appearance before the Board. However, they found the issues in
the case were sufficiently documented and that a personal
appearance would not materially add to the Board's understanding
of the issues involved. Thus, your request for a personal
appearance has been denied.

After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire
record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was
insufficient to establish the existence of probable material
error or injustice. In this connection, the Board substantially
concurred with the comments contained in the advisory opinions.
The Board noted that by the summer of 2000, you were an
experienced Navy nurse who had successfully completed multiple
tours of active duty. Your officer fitness reports show that
Doc No 9600-09

you had been stationed in California and Japan. You had served
in various nursing positions such as a surgical nurse, ward
nurse, and emergency nurse. You had also served as a division
officer supervising, at times, up to 30 subordinate personnel.
You had completed leadership training and a Navy “Rights and
Responsibilities” course. You had also served as a staff
education officer, as an additional duty, on multiple occasions.

In late 1999, you applied for a program of advanced education.
You were selected for a program that would allow you to pursue
advanced educational degrees at Georgetown University that would
ultimately lead to a Master of Science in Nursing and a Doctor
of Philosophy in Pharmacology (Combined Master of Science/PhD
Program). Because of your selection, between approximately the
summer of 2000 and the summer 2007, you received full time
active duty pay and allowances while pursuing your advanced
education at government expense at a prestigious civilian
institution. As you know, receipt of advanced education under
such a program requires that, upon completion of the course of
study, the recipient serve on active duty for a term of
obligated service that is reflective of the education received
at government expense. You began your studies in 2000. You
completed your studies in 2007. More than two years later, in
September 2009, you applied to this Board for the first time
complaining, essentially, that you “were not given anything in
writing” prior to commencing your studies that “specifically
detailed the length of service” or the “financial consequences”
of receiving the 7 years of education at government expense
between 2000 and 2007. You seek to have your obligated service
resulting from training reduced and to be granted retroactive
bonuses and special pays.

Bureau of Medicine and Surgery Instruction (BUMEDINST) 1520.27
(series) is the regulation that governs full time duty under
instruction for Navy Nurse Corps officers. At the time of your
accession into your Combined Master of Science/PhD Program, that
instruction was publicly and widely available. Indeed, your own
application for the Masters in Science/Nurse Anesthesia program
(which preceded your later selection for the Combined Master of
Science/PhD Program) refers to BUMEDINST 1520.27 and even
recounts the formula used for computing the educational service
obligation. Your agreement of 10 Sep 1999 states that you
agreed to “serve on active duty for a period of 3 years for the
first full year of study and an additional 6 months of service
for each additional 6 months of study or portion thereof.”
Notably, under that instruction, the same formula applies to
Graduate, Bridge (Registered Nurse to Masters of Science in
Doc No 9600-09

Nursing), Doctorate and Fellowship programs. Additionally, the
advisory opinion of 15 April 2010 states that you were informed
of what your obligations would be when you accepted the Combined
Master of Science/PhD Program course of study. Under these
circumstances, the Board was satisfied that there was a meeting
of the minds prior to your entry into the Combined Master of
Science/PhD Program about what your educational course would be
and what your service obligation would be. In the Board's view,
you knew the term of obligated service that would be required of
you after completion of the 7 years of advanced education at

government expense. And even if you did not know, you should
have.

Moreover, the Board notes that you did not even make application
to this Board until two years after you completed all of your
studies and had received both of your degrees. Your application
points out that, while undergoing your studies, you “requested
to be released” from your training pipeline. You have
complained that your requests were ignored. However there is no
evidence of an application to this Board or other vigorous
complaint about your obligated service. You did not invoke any
of the formal dispute resolution remedies that are widely known’
and available to Navy members such as filing an Article 138 or
1150 complaint or making a complaint to the BUMED or Navy
Inspector General. Under the rules governing this Board, an
application for a correction of a naval record must be made ina
timely manner. Failure to file a timely application may be
excused only in cases where the Board finds that it is in the
interests of justice to do so. This common-sense standard
exists because delay in asserting a claim can sometimes cause
prejudice to the Navy’s ability to fairly resolve a claim.

After reviewing your application, the Board finds that it is not
in the interests of justice to excuse the excessive lapse of
time in making your application. You knew, or should have known
of your service obligations as early as 2000. You did not apply
to this Board disputing those obligations until 2009. Your
application was first received a full two years after you
finished your Combined Master of Science/PhD Program and had
received your degrees. You neglected to assert your claim
before this Board for an inordinately long period of time.
During most of that time, you were in an academic setting
pursuing an advanced degree at Navy expense. Because of your

 

1 These remedies are part of the core curriculum of the Navy Rights and
Responsibilities course.

2
Doc No 9600-09

neglect, the Secretary of the Navy (SECNAV), acting through this
Board, was deprived of the opportunity to, perhaps, terminate
your Combined Master of Science/PhD Program training (if found
to be appropriate) and immediately place you in a non-academic
full duty nursing status. SECNAV’s inability to shorten your
training is directly related to the tardiness of your claim.

The Board found that it was not reasonable for you to delay your
application to this Board (complaining about the “costs” of your
participation in the educational program) until after you had
reaped all of the educational “benefits” of your program. In
the Board’s view, you had ample opportunity to file an earlier
application and, therefore, you should bear the consequences of
your inaction.

Additionally, the Board carefully considered your request for
retention bonuses special pays retroactive to March 2003.
However, for the reasons stated in the advisory opinions and
above, the Board found insufficient evidence of an error or
injustice to warrant relief. Because of the program you were
in, you were not entitled to the bonuses and special pays that
you have requested.

Under these circumstances and for the reasons stated above, in
the Board’s view, no relief is warranted. Accordingly, your
application has been denied. The names and votes of the members
of the panel will be furnished upon request.

It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such
that favorable action cannot be taken. You are entitled to have
the Board reconsider its decision upon submission of new and
material evidence or other matter not previously considered by
the Board. In this regard, it is also important to keep in mind
that a presumption of regularity attaches to all official
records. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an
official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to
demonstrate the existence of probable material error or
injustice.

Sincerely,

La Maan

W. DEAN PFERI
Executive reétor

 

Enclosures