APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, correction of his records to show that he was commissioned as a USAR officer on 13 May 1980 with appropriate constructive service credit and changes to his basic pay entry date (BPED) and basic active service date (BASD). APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he was unjustly denied the opportunity to fulfill his ROTC obligation in the USAR and was forced to enter active duty contrary to his agreement and at great expense to him which has imposed a serious financial hardship on him and his family. He further states that he was also misinformed that he could not be commissioned in the USAR while he under an approved delay for educational reasons which was untrue and has resulted in his being commissioned 2 years later than he should have been. Additionally, he contends that he has not been given the appropriate amount of constructive service credit which has resulted in his BASD and BPED being computed incorrectly and his not receiving the correct amount of pay and allowances. EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show: On 25 August 1978 the applicant signed an ROTC contract agreement as a non-scholarship cadet enrolling in the advanced course at Alcorn State University. As part of his contract he agreed in paragraph 1e(1), to serve as a commissioned officer for 6 years, to include an initial period of active duty of not less than 3 years, or if the Army did not require his service on active duty, he would serve and participate satisfactorily in the USAR for a period of 8 years. He was commissioned as a USAR second lieutenant on 17 December 1982. On 5 May 1983 he submitted an application for initial (educational) delay from entry on active duty for the purpose of attending medical school. His request was approved on 13 June 1983. The applicant was again commissioned as a USAR officer on 7 November 1989, this time in the rank of captain. He was again granted educational delays from active duty until 1993 to complete a civilian sponsored medical residency program in anesthesiology. The applicant subsequently requested that he be allowed to fullfill his active duty obligation in the Reserve components. The Office of the Surgeon General (OTSG) reviewed the applicant’s request and denied it on 25 July 1990. The OTSG informed the applicant that he had entered into a contractual agreement with the Department on 25 August 1978 in which he agreed to serve no less than 3 consecutive years of active duty unless sooner relieved of the obligation or discharged by proper authorities. It further explained that he had been granted a deferment from his active duty obligation to attend medical school and that he had signed three forms in February 1984, March 1985, and March 1986, in which he acknowledged his agreement to serve on active duty. Furthermore, he had been granted an additional delay to complete his civilian anesthesiology training program. Inasmuch as the Army was critically short of physicians and needed his services as an anesthesiologist, his request could not be approved. Accordingly, the applicant was ordered to active duty on 14 August 1994 for a period of 3 years and assigned to Fort Knox, Kentucky. He was ordered to active duty in the rank of captain and awarded 9 years of constructive credit for his active duty grade determination and 6 years creditable service for his health professional pay entry date. On 23 November 1994 the Army Reserve Personnel Center (ARPERCEN) amended his orders to award him 10 years and 4 months of constructive credit for his active duty grade determination and 6 years and 4 months of creditable service for his health professional pay entry date. He was promoted to the rank of major with an adjusted date of rank of 14 April 1994. In the processing of this case a staff member of the Board contacted officials at the local Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) office to ascertain the applicant’s BASD and BPED. Officials at the DFAS office indicated that the applicant’s BASD was listed as 14 August 1994 and his BPED was listed as 17 December 1982, based on his constructive service credit. DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded: 1. In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement. 2. The applicant’s contention that he was unjustly denied the opportunity to serve his active duty obligation in the Reserve components is without merit. The applicant clearly had a contract that specified his obligation to serve a minimum of 3 years of active duty unless sooner relieved of that obligation by the Department. Furthermore, the applicant acknowledged his understanding of his active duty obligation on more than one occasion. 3. The Board notes the applicant’s contention that he should have been commissioned in May 1980. However, it is not supported by the evidence submitted with his application or the evidence of record. The evidence of record contains an oath of office (DA Form 71) dated 17 December 1982, which is the earliest date indicating he took the oath of office. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary. it must be presumed that his commission on 17 December 1982 is valid. 4. The applicant’s contention that he should receive more constructive service credit than he received and that his BASD and BPED should be adjusted also appears to be without merit. The applicant’s constructive service credit was recomputed by the ARPERCEN on 23 November 1994, and his service dates were corrected accordingly. The applicant has submitted no evidence to refute the accuracy of either the constructive service credit or his service dates. 5. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant’s request. DETERMINATION: The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice. BOARD VOTE: GRANT GRANT FORMAL HEARING DENY APPLICATION Karl F. Schneider Acting Director