RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-01263 (Case 2)
		INDEX CODE:  110.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her narrative reason for separation be changed from “Involuntary Release: Disapproved Request for Extension of Tour” to “Separated or Convenience of the Government.”
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The disapproval of her tour extension may not have been factual or was contrary to policy.

In support of her request, the applicant submits a personal statement and copies of her DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States), with additional documents associated with the issues cited in her contentions.  The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 24 Sep 85, the applicant was appointed a second lieutenant, Reserve of the Air Force Nurse Corps (NC), and was voluntarily ordered to extended active duty on 26 Nov 85.  She was progressively promoted to the Reserve grade of captain, effective and with a date of rank of 1 Jan 90.

Information extracted from the applicant’s submission reveals that, on 6 Jul 89, her Specified Period of Time Contract (SPTC) application was disapproved because it would have extended her beyond five years of active duty in a non-career status.  The applicant’s 11 Sep 90 request to have her Oct 90 date of separation (DOS) extended to Oct 91 was disapproved on 5 Oct 90.
The applicant’s DEROS (date eligible for return from overseas) was 17 Oct 90 (refer to Exhibit A).

Applicant's OER/OPR profile, commencing with the report closing 25 May 86 follows:

		Period Ending	Evaluation

	 (2Lt)      25 May 86	1-1-1
	            25 Nov 86	2-2-2 (Referral Report)
	            24 Apr 87	1-1-1
	            24 Oct 87	1-1-1
	 (1Lt)      24 Apr 88	1-1-1
	            12 Jun 89	Meets Standards
	 (Capt)     12 Jun 90	Meets Standards

On 17 Oct 90, the applicant was released from active duty under the provisions of AFR 36-12 (Involuntary Release: Disapproved Request for Extension of Tour) and transferred to the Air Force Reserve.  She had completed a total of 4 years, 10 months and 22 days of active service and was serving in the grade of captain (O3) at the time of separation.  The applicant is currently assigned to the Nonobligated Nonparticipating Ready Personnel Section (NNRPS).

The relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force at Exhibits C and D.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPAMN recommends the application be denied.  DPAMN states the applicant’s Specified Period of Time Contract (SPTC) request was disapproved on 5 Oct 90.  The applicant’s Report on Individual Personnel, dated 20 Aug 90, reflects that an Unfavorable Information File (UIF) was established and that she was on a Control Roster.  DPAMN indicated that the cause for the UIF was not annotated in the applicant’s records.  DPAMN’s stated that the applicant’s Jun 90 OPR and previous history of a referral OPR (Nov 86) substantiate the comment “very poor OPRs.”  The OPRs did not recommend continuation beyond DEROS.  While the UIF was unavailable for review, the presence of any UIF and placement on a Control Roster would not have supported continuation beyond DEROS.  The denial request for extension of tour in Sep 90 was factually supported on the ground that applicant did not meet quality force requirements; i.e., had UIF and Control Roster.  DPAMN indicated that the only available reference to submission of an Indefinite Reserve Status (IRS) package was the SPTC, submitted 11 Sep 90, wherein the applicant requested an extension of her current DOS (17 Oct 90) for 1 year (until Oct 91) as an accompaniment to her IRS package.  The applicant assumed the rank of captain for 9 months.  No documentation was submitted to reflect she processed an administrative request to change her career status, even though she sought and was medically cleared for IRS.  The applicant had been informed of the current regulation requiring a nurse officer to acquire retainability to fulfill ADSC.  She had not acquired retainability; thus, she did not have an ADSC for her promotion to captain.  The denial of extension of tour was not contrary to an existing ADSC - her DEROS was 17 Oct 90.  DPAMN indicated that the applicant’s SPTC, dated May 89, requesting her Oct 90 DOS be extended until Oct 91 for tuition assistance was inadvertently approved.  The USAFE Command Nurse subsequently pulled the SPTC because the “officer did not have career retention to meet requirement for ‘tuition assistance’ approval.”  DPAMN stated that no record was available to reflect the applicant had submitted/had an approved application for SPTC to extend her retainability to meet the tuition assistance requirement before she applied for tuition assistance.  No record was available to reflect the applicant submitted/had an approved application for IRS prior to the May SPTC.  Had an IRS package been approved prior to submission of the May 89 SPTC, the applicant would have had “career status” and been eligible for tuition assistance.  The applicant did not meet retainability requirements to apply for tuition assistance.  The denial of request for extension of tour in Sep 89 was factually supported on the ground that the applicant was in a non-career status.  The HQ AFPC/DPAMN evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPPO stated that the applicant met and was selected above-the-promotion zone (APZ) for promotion to the grade of captain by the CY89B Captain Central Selection Board, which convened on 25 Sep 89.  Per The governing Air Force regulation, each officer promoted to captain after 1 Jan 90   incurs a 1-year ADSC beginning on the effective date of promotion.  The officer must obtain retainability to complete the ADSC before the promotion is effective or promotion orders published.  DPPPO’s records indicate the applicant was allowed to pin-on captain without the required retainability.  Although she applied for the retainability at a later date and it was disapproved, no action was taken to affect her promotion to captain.  The HQ AFPC/DPPPO evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on 13 September 2002 for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit E).
_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

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

2.  The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s submission, we are unpersuaded that the requested relief should be approved.  Applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, other than her own assertions, she has provided no evidence establishing that her discharge was unfounded or unjust.  We found no persuasive evidence that responsible officials applied inappropriate standards in effecting the applicant’s discharge, that pertinent Air Force regulations were violated or that the applicant was not afforded all the rights to which entitled at the time of discharge.  We therefore agree with the opinions and recommendations of the appropriate Air Force offices and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain her burden that she has suffered either an error or an injustice.  In view of the above and absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, 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 this application in Executive Session on 31 October 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 23 May 02, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPAMN, dated 16 Aug 02.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPO, dated 10 Sep 02.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 Sep 02.