RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS. IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-00779 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her date of rank (DOR) be reviewed and corrected and her two nonselections for promotion to major be removed from her records. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She should not have been considered for promotion because her DOR dates back to July 2005 and she was commissioned in the Air Force Reserve (AFR) in May 2011. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 10 Feb 92, the applicant commenced her enlistment in the Regular Army and was discharged on 21 Aug 92, with an “uncharacterized” character of service and a narrative reason for separation of “pregnancy.” According to the applicant’s retirement/retention year history, she was in civilian status from 22 Aug 92 through 2 Aug 99. According to the applicant’s NGB Form 22, Report of Separation and Records of Service, she served in the Army National Guard from 3 Aug 99 through 31 Dec 01, and was separated from service with a “general, under honorable conditions” character of service and a reason for separation of “unsatisfactory participation.” According to the applicant’s retirement/retention year history, she was in civilian status from 1 Jan 02 through 19 May 11. Per Reserve Order PA-00744, dated 6 Jun 11, the applicant was appointed as a Reserve of the Air Force officer, in the grade of captain, 0-3, effective 20 May 11, and was assigned to the Ready Reserve. According to the applicant’s grade history her date of rank (DOR) as a captain (03) is 29 Jul 05, effective 20 May 11. On 30 May 14, the applicant received a memorandum from ARPC/DPTT informing her that because of her second deferral for promotion she must be discharged in accordance with Title 10 U.S.C. Section 14505. Her mandatory separation date was adjusted to reflect 1 Dec 14. On 1 Dec 14, the applicant was honorably discharged. 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: ARPC/PB recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. The applicant’s DOR was established in accordance with AFI 36-2005, Appointment in Commissioned Grades and Designation and Assignment in Professional Categories-Reserve of the Air Force and United States Air Force. On 20 May 11, the applicant was appointed as a captain in the USAFR and based on her experience she was given service credit for her specialized experience effective the initial date of her registered nurse licensure on 21 Jul 98. Her DOR was correctly backdated to account for the constructive credit she received. Based on her DOR of 29 Jul 05, she was eligible for promotion consideration by the calendar year (CY) 13 and CY 14 USAFR Participating Reserve (PR) Line and Nonline Major Promotion Selection Boards. The applicant was a nonselect by both boards. In accordance with Title 10 USC, a captain on the Reserve Active Status List (RASL) who has failed to be promoted to the next grade twice and had not been continued will be separated no later than the first day of the seventh month after the month the President approves the board report for the service members second nonselecton. Based on her two nonselections for promotion, her mandatory separation date (MSD) was correctly established. A complete copy of the ARPC/PB evaluation is at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In further support of her request, the applicant contends the advisory states that after a review of her personnel record the appointment of time and grade to captain was based on her experience for service credit of specialized experience back to 1998 for her RN licensure. She received her Bachelor’s degree for nursing in August 2008, which is on file in her personnel record and was needed for her commissioning into the Reserve. As a flight nurse in the USAFR there are required schools and qualifications to be met to become worldwide qualified. Commands have noted and have been aware that a minimum of three years for new accessions is the minimum to become fully qualified flight nurse. Depending on Commission Officer Training (COT) dates, which had been delayed 12 to 18 months nurses who had submitted open dates for any school dates for specialty were delayed in being sent to these courses due to available seats and funding. Furthermore, because of the time limit and schools to attend, recent changes have been made to the bonuses for this AFSC due to nurses receiving the bonus and being unable to attend schools and were getting out of the service at their three year commitment never attending the schools or becoming fully qualified. She became fully qualified to fly as a flight nurse and worldwide ready in November/December 2014. Her DOR being back dated to the associate degree for commissioning giving her creditable service and appointing a DOR of 29 Jul 05 set her up for failure before her time in service began. She accepted any schooling willingly because she knew how difficult it could be to meet the three year requirement to become fully qualified. Her goal for fiscal year 2015 was to attend the squadron deployment and SOS for professional development. She has the support and backing from the command and if her request is approved she would like assistance in submitting a request for continuation of service from the Secretary of Defense due her being in a critical AFSC. The applicant’s complete response 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 an error or injustice. We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission, to include her rebuttal, in judging the merits of the case and do not find that it supports a determination that the applicant was improperly separated from the Air Force Reserve in 2014. We note the applicant’s contention she should not have been considered for promotion because her date of rank (DOR) dates back to July 2005 and she was commissioned in the Air Force Reserve in May 2011. However, we do not find this contention sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale expressed by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR). We note the OPR states the applicant’s DOR was established in accordance with governing instructions and based on her experience she was given service credit for her specialized experience effective the initial date of her registered nurse licensure on 21 Jul 98. The OPR further states her DOR was correctly backdated to account for the constructive credit she received. We find no evidence showing that the applicant’s separation is contrary to governing policies. While we are not unsympathetic to the applicant’s circumstances, in the absence of evidence indicating she was treated differently than others who are similarly situated; we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the OPR and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. In view of this determination, there exists no basis upon which to favorably consider the applicant's request. 4. The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-00779 in Executive Session on 4 Nov 15, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-00779 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 22 Feb 15, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, ARPC/PB, dated 17 Mar 15. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Apr 15. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 6 Apr 15. 3