RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-00112
		INDEX CODE:102.07
		COUNSEL:  NONE	

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His date of rank (DOR) be adjusted to reflect constructive service credit for time he was employed as a registered nurse.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

At the time he applied for his commission, he worked part-time for Stat-Resource.  However, during the period of 1 Apr 98 through 9 Sep 98, he worked full-time as a contract nurse.  

In support of his request applicant provided a letter from his former employer and a copy of his 1998 W-2.  His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Data extracted from the personnel data system reflects that on 1 Mar 01, applicant was appointed a first lieutenant, Reserve of the Air Force with a DOR of 7 Nov 00 and an effective date of 1 Mar 01.  

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ ARPC/DPB reviewed applicant's request and recommends denial.  DPB states when he was appointed, he did not claim full-time employment during the time period in question.  A review of his original commissioning application reflects constructive service credit was accurately awarded at the time of his appointment based on the information he provided.  In his original application he stated he worked full-time as a nurse from 1 Jan 95 through 1 Apr 98, and from 9 Sep 98 to the date of his application.  He also stated throughout the entire period covered, he worked part-time for six other companies.  He was awarded constructive service credit for all full-time nursing experience from the date of initial license (5 Feb 96) through the date of appointment.  AFI 36-2005, states "Without specific congressional direction, appointing authorities cannot apply constructive credit or service credit entitlements (grandfathering) retroactively and a member cannot terminate his or her appointment and request reappointment in order to take advantage of changes to constructive credit rules."  He cannot now request reassessment of his original constructive service credit.  

The DPB evaluation is at Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 23 Jul 03, for review and response within 15 days.  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.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  Evidence has not been provided which would lead us to believe that the rules of the applicable regulations, which implement the law, were inappropriately applied or that he was denied rights to which he was entitled.  We took note that he has not provided a substantive explanation as to why he did not include the requested work experience in his original commissioning application.  Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  In the absence of persuasive 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 Docket Number 02-00112 in Executive Session on 3 Sep 02, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 11 Jan 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, ARPC/DPB, dated 1 Jul 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Jul 02.