AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

ADDENDUM TO 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  86-04015 

COUNSEL:  NONE 

HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

2 4 1998 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

His  records be  corrected  to entitle him,  upon  graduation  from the 
Uniformed  Services  University  of  the  Health  Sciences  (USUHS), to 
four years of active duty credit for the purpose of longevity pay. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

He  received  longevity  credit  counseling  at  the  United  States  Air 
Force  Academy  (USAFA) relating  to  a  medical  career;  that,  unlike 
those who attended USUHS before him, with him and after him, he has 
not  received  constructive  credit as  counseled; and  that he  is the 
only  counseled  USAFA  graduate  not  being  recognized  with 
constructive service credit in the USUHS Class of 1987. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

In  an  application  to  the  AFBCMR,  dated  12  February  1985,  the 
applicant  requested,  in essence,  that  his  records be  corrected to 
award him  four years of  constructive service credit  for basic  pay 
as a  result  of  his  graduation  from the  USUHS.  He  contended that 
his  recruitment and  counseling regarding the  service  credit to be 
awarded  for ‘completion of USUHS  were  erroneous because  he was  not 
advised  of  the  changes  in entitlements resulting  from  the  Defense 
Officer Personnel Management Act  (DOPMA). 
On  15  January  1987,  the  AFBCMR  considered  and  denied  his 
application  in  executive  session. 
The  Board  observed  that  the 
applicant  was  correct  in  that  the  1983  -  1984  USUHS  Bulletin 
contained  inconsistencies  in  addressing  creditable  service. 
However,  the  Board  did  not  view  this  inconsistency,  in  and  of 
itself,  as  evidence  of  an  error  or  injustice which  would  mandate 
corrective action.  It appeared that USUHS made  a concerted effort 
to  modify  their  counseling  program  to  include  information 
pertaining to the DOPMA changes to the service credit entitlements. 
The  Board  noted  that  some doubt  was  present  as  to whether  or  not 
all  individuals  in  the  1987  class  received  complete  counseling 
pertaining  to  this  area;  however,  the  documentation submitted did 

,

.

 

not convince the Board that USUHS did not fulfill their requirement 
to  provide  the  information  necessary  for  individuals  to  make 
reasoned  decisions  regarding entry  into the  program.  Neither  the 
brief  outlines  of  counseling  sessions nor  the  statements provided 
convinced  the  Board  that  miscounseling  actually  occurred.  There 
were inconsistencies, but the Board believed the applicant had some 
responsibility  to  insure he  had  clarification of  any  questionable 
area  prior  to  signing  the  contract  which  committed  him  to  the 
service.  More  importantly,  the  Board  found  insufficient evidence 
to negate the terms of the written contract  (Exhibit AA,  Pages 4  & 
5 )  - 
On  24  June  1992, the  applicant  requested  reconsideration based  on 
the fact that the Board had granted an application that he believed 
was  similar  to  his  (Exhibit BB  with  Attachments).  On  30  March 
1992,  the  applicant  was  advised by  the  Executive  Director  of  the 
AFBCMR  that  his  submission  did  not  meet  the  criteria  warranting 
reconsideration. 
On  7  April  1997,  the  applicant  again  requested  reconsideration 
based on the fact that the Board had granted  several cases that he 
believed  to be  similar to his  case  (Exhibit CC with  Attachments). 
On 12 June 1997, the Executive Director of the AFBCMR again advised 
the  applicant  that  his  submission  did  not  meet  the  criteria 
warranting reconsideration. 
On  30  June  1997,  the  applicant  wrote  a  letter  to  the  Executive 
Director again  requesting  reconsideration of  his  application.  He 
argued  that  the  statement  that  his  case  was  not  reconsidered 
because  no  new  relevant  evidence  was  provided  was  outrageous  in 
light of  what  had  transpired  in  at  least  five  of  his  classmates' 
AFBCMR  submittals during  the past  seven years and  as reflected in 
his  recent  submittal.  He  set  forth  the  reasons  he  believed  his 
case  should  be  granted  and  indicated  that  he  would  appreciate  a 
response within fifteen days  (Exhibit DD). 
In  a  letter,  dated  16  July  1997,  the  Executive  Director  of  the 
AFBCMR provided the applicant a detailed response.  In summary, the 
Executive Director stated that the applicant "may be the only USAFA 
graduate that was properly  counseled on the pre-DOPMA constructive 
service credit associated with completing medical  school at U S U H S ,  
but  could  not  take  advantage  of  this  entitlement  because  of  the 
exigencies  of  the  service."  He  was  not,  however,  the  only  1987 
graduate  of  USUHS  or  AFHPSP  that  had  been  denied  constructive 
service  credit  for  pay  and  promotion  because  of  the  failure  to 
establish  miscounseling  and  detrimental  reliance  on  such 
counseling.  Therefore, to grant his application in the absence of 
convincing  evidence  of  miscounseling,  would  be  grossly  unfair  to 
EE) . 
the hundreds of other officers that are similarly situated  (Exhibit 
On  15  August  1997,  the  former  chairman  of  the  Health  Professions 
Advisory  Committee  (HPAC)  at  the  USAFA  submitted  a  letter 
indicating that  he  assumed  that  position  in  the  Fall  Semester  of 

2 

AFBCMR 86-04015 

1981.  During his chairmanship, they briefed the  following, having 
received  no  official  notification  from  the  military  personnel 
office to the contrary:  The Health Professions Scholarship Program 
(HPSP)  [participants]  incurred  an  additional  obligation  of  four 
(over  and  above  the  USAFA  commitment,  and  served 
years 
sequentially,  not  concurrently),  were  paid  a  monthly  support 
stipend,  and  were  required  to  perform  45  days  of  active  duty 
clerkship  training  each  summer.  The  USUHS  program  [participants] 
incurred an additional obligation of  seven years  (beyond the USAFA 
commitment  -  again,  served  sequentially) and  were  on  active  duty 
receiving full 0-1 pay and allowances for their four medical school 
years. 
Upon  graduation,  the  new  physicians  from  both  programs 
would  be commissioned into the Medical  Corps at  the  0-3 rank with 
four years  of  commissioned  service credited for pay  purposes,  and 
thus on par with their fellow USAFA graduates. 
Applicant was previously advised by his predecessor on this policy. 
Naturally, any source of changes to this policy for applicant would 
have  come  from  the  HPAC  since  they  maintained  the  relationships 
necessary  for  applicant‘s  successful  entry  into  medical  school. 
Accordingly, he would have briefed  applicant on the information he 
had  available  at  the  time,  which  is  reflected  above  and  was  no 
different  from  how  he  had  previously  been  counseled  by  his 
predecessor  (Exhibit EE) . 
In  a  letter  of  6  September  1997,  applicant  provides  further 
clarification and  states, in part,  that essentially, continuity of 
training,  e.g.,  direct  entry  from  USAFA  to  USUHS,  is  a  necessary 
element to claim constructive credit.  In the USUHS Class of 1989, 
Dr.  ”V” was  given  constructive credit by  the Board, but  graduated 
from  the  USAFA  in  1982  and  matriculated  at  USUHS  in  1985,  some 
three years after  graduation.  During  this ti 
assigned as a space systems project officer at 
Like this officer, he was  counseled at  the Academy, was  on active 
duty  for  three  years  as  a  space  systems  project  officer  at  ElpL 
and  then  matriculated  at  USUHS.  Although  this 
officer  did  not  fulfill  the  necessary  element  of  continuity  to 
anted  relief  by  the  Board.  His  case  is 
claim  credit, 
case,  so  he  requests  similar  treatment 
identical  to 
(Exhibit FF) . 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
HQ  AFPC/JA  recommends  denial  of  the  applicant‘s -  request  for 
reconsideration.  In their view, the former HPAC chairman’s letter 
does not contain any evidence or information that was not known and 
available to the  applicant when  he  filed his  original  application 
in 1985.  Either he briefed him he was entitled to credit or he did 
not.  If  so, the  applicant  either  relied  upon  it  or  he  did  not. 
This was not hidden from the applicant; by definition, he was there 
and  he  knew.  Consequently,  the  evidence  contained  in  the  former 
HPAC chairman’s letter cannot possibly be “newly discovered.” 

3 

AFBCMR 86-040 15 

.

 

JA  further  states  that  a  close  reading  of  the  former  chairman's 
letter will  show he never claims unequivocally to have briefed the 
applicant  that  he  was  entitled  to  the  four  years  of  constructive 
service  credit  in  issue. 
As  the  Board  has  correctly  noted  on 
several  occasions,  when  the  applicant  was  a  cadet  and  received 
standard  HPAC  cadet  briefings,  the  law  accorded  such  constructive 
service credit to medical officers.  He graduated, was c 
into the line, was assigned to a Space Command base  in 
and DOPMA took effect repealing such credit.  What  the 1 
the  former  HPAC  chairman  establishes  is  that  he  had  contact with 
applicant  during  his  line  of  the Air  Force days  and  assisted him 
not  aware  of  the 
with  his  medical  school  applications. 
icant of them.  The 
DOPMA changes and, thus, never informed t 
best he can say is ''I  would have briefed 
on the information 
no 
d  above  an 
I had  available  at  the  time, which  is  r 
different from how he had previously been counseled by Dr. 
In 
his  latest  letter  to  the  Board,  the  applicant  claims  the  former 
HPAC chairman " ... states ... that he continued to advise me of the 
benefits of the USUHS program to include service credit."  But, of 
course,  he  says  no  such  thing;  interesting,  neither  does  the 
would have briefed  . . .";  the latter 
applicant.  The former says 'I 
says  the  former  chairman  '\  ...  states  .... " 
Why  would  he  have 
briefed the applicant?  Applicant was no longer a cadet sitting in 
his  briefings. 
Because  the  former  HPAC  chairman  did  not  think 
there had been any change in the entitlement, there would have been 
no reason for him to have addressed the subject with the applicant. 
Bottom line:  There is no  showing of misinformation by  the  former 
HPAC chairman to the applicant. 
Moreover, until now, applicant has never mentioned being misled by 
the former HPAC chairman.  Instead, he based his original claim of 
misleading information about constructive service credit for pay on 
briefings  by  the  USUHS  registrar  and  information  in  the  USUHS 
Bulletin.  In his  request  for reconsideration in 1992, he made  no 
mention  of  being  misled  by  the  former  chairman. 
Even  when  he 
submitted his request, via  a new AF  Form 149, on 7 April  1997, he 
For  the 
never  claimed the  former HPAC  chairman miscounseled him 
first time, he did claim such from Lieutenant -, 
the HPAC 
chairman  at 'the USAFA  during  the  applicant's  cadet  years.  The 
point  is this:  The  failure to mention  it  in his  numerous demands 
for relief is strong evidence he never relied to his detriment on 
misinformation supplied by the former HPAC chairman. 
In  accordance  with  the  Board's  request,  they  have  sought  to 
was  the  proper  official  to  counsel 
determine whether 
ant  subsequent  to  his  graduation  from  the  USAFA.  They 
the current health professions advisor at the USAFA, Dr. 
who stated that her position and that of the chairman of 
i 
ance  to  former  cadets  similar  to  that 
detailed  in 
letter.  However,  there  is  no  duty  to 
brief  such  officers  or  seek  them  out  for  purposes  of  providing 
information. 
Rather,  the  HPAC  is  available  for  assistance  as 
requested.  Moreover, she stressed that cuyrent practice is to tell 
graduates  that  it  is  their  individual  responsibility to  find  out 

4 

AFBCMR 86-04015 

the details of the health profession program they are interested in 
by  contacting  appropriate  officials  at  AFIT,  AFPC,  USUHS,  etc. 
Thus,  they  believe  "C"  would  have  been  a  proper  official  to have 
counseled  the  applicant,  but  have  found no  evidence  of  a  duty  on 
his  part  to  have  briefed  the  applicant  on  changes  to  the 
constructive  service  entitlement. 
A  complete  copy  of  the  HQ 
AFPC/JA advisory opinion is at Exhibit GG. 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

Applicant states, in part, that the opinion provides to the Board a 
transient  "impression" concerning  this  case. 
Furthermore,  it 
trivializes  and  denigrates  the  statements of  fact as presented  by 
senior  United  States  Air  Force  commissioned  officers,  Air  Force 
Academy  academic  advisors,  USUHS  representatives  and  the  USUHS 
medical  school bulletins.  The opinion also ignores important Board 
precedent.  The Board has already established the pertinent  facts. 
Colonel  "C",  as  the  Chairman  of  the  HPAC  at  the Academy,  was  not 
aware of the change in the law.  The Board has previously concluded 
that "AS incredulous as it may  seem that this officer was not aware 
of  such  a  significant  change  in  the  law  ....  we  have  his 
unequivocal statement that he did not know."  Accordingly, his HPAC 
briefings,  advisement and answers to questions contained erroneous 
information. 
*  ed  that  it  was  not 
"to have  relied  on 
unreasonable  for  those  advised  by 
career paths.  The 
the  information  furnished by  him" 
AFPC/JA  advisory  opinion  clearly  states  that 
would  have  been  a  proper  official  to  have 
Both  HPAC  chairmen  have  already  stated  that  they 

The  Board  has  also 

advised him.  What  is established, therefore, is that  Colonel  "C" 
was a proper advisor for him and that he advised him.  And, that he 
did  not  know  of  the  change  in  the  law. 
That  further,  it  was 
reasonable for him to have relied on his advisement.  As a result, 
and  based  on his  counsel,  he  made  career  planning  decisions  that 
have adversely affected his career.  Documentation of the impact of 
such  advisement  from  the  HPAC  chairmen  at  the  Academy  in making 
career  shaping  decisions  is  included  in  the  6  September  1997 
letter. 
The advisory opinion restates history.  The repeal of constructive 
credit with  the passage  of  DOPMA is  NOT  in dispute.  Rather,  the 
Board has  established precedent  by  extending credit to a  group of 
counseled, direct entry officers, e.g., USAFA to USUHS, as well as 
at  least  one  counseled,  "non''  direct  entry  officer  e.g.  USAFA  to 
active duty to USUHS.  More specifically, Case #95-00330  relates to 
an officer with  the  identical circumstances as himself, who was  a 
counseled  USAFA  graduate  and  was  on  active  duty  for  three  years 
prior to matriculating at USUHS.  This officer has applied for and 
received  constructive  credit. 
He  asks  for  similar  treatment 
without  discrimination. 
HQ  AFPC/JA  also  states  that  present 
AFAHPAC  "policy"  is  to  notify  graduates  of  an  "individual 
responsibility to  find out  the details .... 
So, even after  years 

If 

5 

AFBCMR 86-0401 5 

of  premedical  counseling,  briefings  and  advisement,  the  current 
AFAHPAC  chairman advises cadets upon graduation to go discover the 
truth  about  Air  Force medical  training  programs?  Even  if  such  a 
chairmanship, it  has  NOT  been 
policy  existed  during 
applied  by  HQ  AFPC/JA  or 
the  previously  noted 
identically situated officer 
The  advisory  opinion  stated  that  miscounseling  has  not  been 
previously  described.  AFAHPAC  advisement was  not  relevant  until 
1990, when  the  Deputy  for  the Air  Force Review  Boards,  upon  BCMR 
recommendation,  established  the counseling/detriment standard.  As 
delineated  in the 7 April  1997 AF Form 149 submittal  (Section lla) 
he  became  aware  of  this  new  standard  in  November  1996. 
Accordingly,  both  the  April  1997  and  September  1997  submittal 
included  specific  evidence  satisfying the new  counseling/detriment 
standard. 
Again, he thanks the Board for their reconsideration of this case. 
The  advisory  “impression”  provided  by  HQ  AFPC/JA  ignores 
established  Board  precedent,  AFAHPAC  chairmen  statements  and  the 
In  contrast,  Case 
in  its  entirety,  summarizes  repeated  counseling 
regarding  constructive  credit  from many  sources  including AFAFPAC 
advisors,  USUHS  representatives  and  the  school  bulletins. 
Furthermore, he  relied  on  these multiple  corroborating  sources to 
make  career  decisions  based  on  these  representations  to  his 
detriment.  As  a  matter  of  justice and  consistency with  previous 
Board decisions, this case must be reviewed favorably (Exhibit HH). 

f  evidence  previously  presented. 

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 probable error or injustice warranting 
favorable  action  on  the  applicant’s  request  for  a  correction  of 
records to entitle him to four years of constructive service credit 
for basic pay as a result of his graduating from medical  school at 
USUHS  in  1987. 
Applicant  contends  that  he  received  longevity 
credit  counseling  at  the  United  States Air  Force Academy  (USAFA) 
relating to a medical career, that unlike those who  attended USUHS 
before  him,  with  him  and  after  him,  he  has  not  received 
constructive credit as counseled and that he is the only counseled 
USAFA  graduate  not  being- recognized  with  constructive  service 
credit  in  the  USUHS  Class  of  1987.  With  the  exception  of  the 
latter  contention,  we  do  not  disagree with  the  applicant  that  he 
was  counseled that  he  would  be  entitled to  four years  of  service 
credit  upon  his  graduation  from  government-sponsored  medical 
training.  We  also  do  not  disagree  that  there  are  a  number  of 

6 

AFBCMR 86-04015 

officers  that  graduated  from USUHS  before  and  after  him  that  are 
entitled  to  the  constructive  service  credit  in  question. 
Nonetheless,  because  of  the  reasons  set  forth  hereinafter,  we  do 
not  find  these  circumstances  sufficiently  compelling  to  conclude 
that the relief sought should be granted.  In this regard, we note 
that: 

a.  In  his  original  application  of  February  12,  1985,  the 
applicant  contended  that  his  recruitment and  counseling  regarding 
the  service  credit  to  be  awarded  for  completion  of  USUHS  were 
erroneous because he was not advised of the changes in entitlements 
resulting  from  the  Defense  Officer  Personnel  Management  Act 
(DOPMA).  He  conceded  at  the  time, however,  that" ...  My  faith  in 
the  'Great  Way  of  Life'  has  been  significantly  damaged  by  the 
simple fact that I was not allowed to go to medical school in 1981 
and  later  made  significant  career  decisions  based  on  erroneous 
information provided by  USUHS.  Decisions which were clearly to my 
detriment.. ."  (Emphasis Added) 

b.  Having  been  unsuccessful  in  his  original  application,  he 
now argues that he was miscounseled by Air  Force Academy personnel 
and submits a statement of support from the former HPAC chairman at 
the Academy. 

c.  As  noted  by  HQ  AFPC/JA,  a  close  reading  of  the  former 
chairman's  letter  shows  he  never  claims  unequivocally  to  have 
briefed  the  applicant  that  he  was  entitled  to  the  four  years  of 
constructive  service  credit  at  issue.  When  the  applicant  was  a 
cadet and  received standard HPAC cadet briefings, the law accorded 
such  constructive  service  credit  to  medical  officers.  Applicant 
graduated, was commissioned into the line, was assigned to a Space 
Command  base  in  California  and  DOPMA  took  effect  repealing  such 
credit.  What the letter from the former HPAC chairman establishes 
is that he  had  contact with  applicant during  his  line  of  the Air 
Force days and  assisted him with  his medical  school applications. 
He was not aware of the DOPMA changes and, thus, never informed the 
nt  of them.  The best  he  can  say is  "I would  have briefed 
on  the  information  I had  available at  the  time,  which  is 
reflected  akjove  and  was  no  different  from  how  he  had  previously 
been counseled by- 

d.  In his latest letter to the Board, the applicant claims the 
former HPAC chairman "...states ... that he continued to advise him 
of  the  benefits  of  the  USUHS  program  to  include  service  credit." 
But, he says no such thing; neither does the applicant.  The former 
would  have  briefed  ...";  the  latter  says  the  former 
says  'I 
chairman ". . .  states  . . . . "  Because  the  former HPAC  chairman did 
not think there had been any change in the entitlement, there would 
have been no reason for him to have addressed the subject with the 
applicant.  Therefore, there is no showing of misinformation by the 
former HPAC chairman to the applicant. 

e.  Until  now,  applicant  has  never  mentioned  being  misled  by 
the former HPAC chairman.  Instead, he based his original claim of 

7 

AFBCMR 86-040 15 

misleading  information about constructive service credit for pay on 
briefings  by  the  USUHS  registrar  and  information  in  the  USUHS 
Bulletin. 

f.  In his  request for reconsideration in 1992, applicant also 
made no mention of being misled by  the former chairman.  Even when 
he submitted his request, via a new 149, on April 7, 1997, he never 
the  first 
claimed  the  former HPAC  chairman miscounsel 
time,  he  now  claims  such  from  Lieutenant 
’  the  HPAC 
chairman  at  the  USAFA  during  his  cadet  years. 
The  failure  to 
mention it in his numerous demands for relief is strong evidence he 
never  relied  to  his  detriment  on  misinformation  supplied  by  the 
former HPAC chairman. 

4.  We  agree with  the  applicant that his  case is identical to the 
case of a fellow officer who previously received relief by another 
panel of the Board.  This officer believed that he was entitled to 
the  constructive  service in question because  he  understood  that  a 
class  action  application  had  been  filed  on  behalf  of  USAFA 
graduates  who  attended  USUHS  and  who  had  been  counseled  by  the 
former  AFAHPAC  chairmen,  Major  “W”  and  Lt  Colonel  ”C.”  Through 
error,  his  case  received  a  favorable  recommendation  from  the  Air 
Force and was routinely granted by another panel of the Board using 
its  delegated  authority  without  close  scrutiny.  This  action  was 
clearly  not  substantiated  and,  if  we  had  the  authority,  we  would 
feel  compelled  to  recommend  that  the  favorable  directive  be 
revoked;  and  that  any  monetary  benefits  received  as  a  result  of 
this  correction be  recouped.  Our  enabling  statute  (10 USC  1552) 
states, however, that, except when procured by  fraud, a correction 
under this section  is final  and  conclusive on all officers of the 
United States.  Since there is no indication of impropriety on the 
part  of  this  officer,  we  are  without  authority  to  correct  this 
error  even  if we  were  inclined to do  so.  It  is unfortunate  that 
the  applicant  is  aware  of  this  officer.  Nonetheless,  we  do  not 
believe  that  the  interest  of  equity  or  justice  requires  us  to 
continue to perpetuate an erroneous action. 

5.  In  summary,  we  received  persuasive  evidence  from  the  former 
chairmen  o f .   the  AFAHPAC  indicating  that  they  miscounseled  the 
cadets  from  the  effective  date  of  DOPMA  (September  15,  1981) 
through the  Spring  of  1985.  We  also found that  because  of  their 
positions, it was  reasonable  for the cadets to have  relied on the 
miscounseling  to  their  detriment  in  making  their  decisions  to 
attend the government-sponsored medical  training.  Therefore, with 
the  exception  of  the  applicant  and  two  others,  we  corrected  the 
records  of  all  but  three  of  the  Air  Force  Academy  graduates  who 
graduated  from  USUHS/HPSP  in  1987,  1988  and  1989  to  provide 
entitlement  to  pre-DOPMA  constructive  service  credit. 
In  the 
applicant’s case, however, ’the evidence is persuasive that since he 
graduated  from  the  AFA  in  1980,  any  counseling received  from  the 
chairman of  the HPAC was accurate.  The evidence is also persuasive 
that,  since the  chairman  of  the  HPAC  who  submitted the  letter of 
support  in  the  initial  case  did  not  know  of  the  change  in  the 
constructive  service  credit  until  well  after  the  applicant 

8 

AFBCMR 86-040 15 

matriculated  into  USUHS,  he  had  no  reason  to  further  advise  the 
applicant  in this area.  Moreover, we  have  found no evidence of a 
duty  on  his  part  to  have  briefed  the  applicant on  changes  to  the 
constructive  service  entitlement.  In  view  of  the  foregoing,  the 
evidence  is  convincing  that  the  applicant's  dilemma  stems  solely 
from his  inability  to  obtain  permission  from  the  Line  of  the  Air 
Force  to  enter  USUHS  prior  to  September  15,  1981,  rather  than 
miscounseling by AFA or USUHS officials.  Therefore, in the absence 
of  clear-cut  evidence  that  the  failure  to  release  the  applicant 
from the Line of the Air  Force prior to the effective date of DOPMA 
(15 September 1981) constituted an abuse of discretion on the part 
of responsible Air  Force officials, we are constrained to conclude 
that  the  applicant  has  again  failed  to  sustain  his  burden  of 
establishing  the  existence  of  either  an  error  or  an  injustice 
warranting favorable action on his request. 

6.  We  realize that  our  earlier  actions  in approving  the  requests 
of  a  number  of AFA  graduates who  graduated  from USUHS  or  HPSP  in 
the  classes  of  1987 through  1989  cause  a  degree  of  institutional 
inequity and, at  first blush, would  seem to beg  for relief on the 
grounds  of  equity. 
As  we  have  previously  stated,  however,  the 
plain  and  unambiguous  language  of  the  applicable  law  leaves  no 
doubt  that,  for  whatever  reason,  the  Congress  intended  that 
effective  September  15,  1981,  these  graduates  of  government- 
sponsored  medical  training  would  no  longer  be  entitled  to 
constructive  service for  computation of basic pay.  Therefore, we 
continue  to believe  that  any  relief on the basis  of  institutional 
inequity  should  be  addressed  to  the  Congress  in  the  form  of  a 
request  for  an  amendment  to  the  statute.  Such  action  could  take 
into consideration  the denial  of  22 Air  Force officers'  cases who 
graduated  from  USUHS  in  1987, but  were  not  AFA  graduates;  the  35 
similar  cases  denied  by  the  Navy  BCNR;  and  the  approximately  200 
like cases  denied  by  the  Army  BCMR.  Consideration  could  also  be 
given  to the  340  1987 Air  Force AFHPSP  graduates and  the  1988 and 
1989  graduates  of  AFHPSP/USUHS  who  were  apparently  properly 
counseled  or  have  decided  to  accept  the  terms  of  their  signed 
contracts notwithstanding  the  fact that  there  are a number  of AFA 
graduates who graduated from medical school in 1987 -  1989 that are 
entitled to the pre-DOPMA constructive service credit for pay. 
7.  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  that  the  evidence  presented  did  not 
demonstrate the existence of probable material  error or injustice; 
that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and 
that the application will  only be  reconsidered upon the submission 

9 

AFBCMR 86-04015 

of  newly  discovered  relevant  evidence  not  considered  with  this 
application. 

The  following members  of  the  Board  considered this  application in 
Executive  Session  on  3  June  1998,  under  the  provisions  of  AFI 
36-2603: 

Mr. LeRoy T. Baseman, Panel Chair 
Mr. Charles E. Bennett, Member 
Mr. Henry C. Saunders, Member 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit 

Exhibit 

Exhibit 

AA . 
BB . 
cc. 
DD. 
EE - 
FF. 
GG . 
HH. 

Exhibit 
Exhibit 
Exhibit 

Exhibit 

Exhibit 

Record of Proceedings of AFBCMR, da,ed  5 May 
1987, with Attachments. 
Letter from Applicant, dated 24 June 1992, 
with Attachments. 
DD Form 149, dated 7 April 1997, with Attach- 
ments. 
Letter from Applicant, dated 30 June 1997. 
Letter from AFBCMR, dated 16 July 1997. 
Letter from Applicant, dated 6 September 
1997, with Attachments. 
Letter from HQ AFPC/JA, dated 19 November 
1997. 
Letter from Applicant, dated 22 December 
1997. 

n 

LEROY ?'. BASEMAN 
Panel Chair 

10 

AFBCMR 86-0401 5