RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-00916
            INDEX CODE: 113.04

      xxxxxx     COUNSEL:  None

      xxxxxxxx   HEARING DESIRED: YES


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.    Her Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) date be restored to 23  July
1998.

2.    Her Incentive Special Pay (ISP) effective  date  be  corrected  to  23
July 1994.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Neither her Armed Forces Health  Professions  Scholarship  Program  (AFHPSP)
contract nor the AFI states that her  Air  Force  Reserve  Officer  Training
Corps (AFROTC) ADSC could not be  served  during  an  active  duty  military
residency.  This is apparently the basis on  which  three  additional  years
were added abruptly to her ADSC two months ago by AFPC/DPAME, when  she  had
less than one year left to serve and was already planning the next stage  in
her life as a civilian.  In fact, both the HPSP contract  and  the  AFI  are
ambiguous on this issue and are open  to  interpretation.   Because  of  the
ambiguity she should not now be prejudiced by a  more  liberal  and  broader
interpretation than the original interpretation.   She  also  requests  that
the effective date of her ISP be corrected.  Her initial  inquiry  into  her
ISP effective date appears to be what precipitated the change  in  her  ADSC
date.  Her ISP effective date inquiry  has  merit  on  the  basis  that  the
Medical Special  Pay  office  misinterpreted  the  regulation.   The  actual
intent of the regulation is to avoid situations  in  which  an  active  duty
physician could have overlapping yearly ISP contracts for both  a  specialty
and a subspecialty.  Since she came on active duty on 23 July 1994  with  no
prior ISP contract in her specialty  from  1993,  the  Medical  Special  Pay
office should have recorded her eligibility for  the  ISP  contract  in  her
subspecialty (allergy/immunology) on 23 July 1994  instead  of  delaying  it
until 1 October 1994.   Although  this  is  seemingly  a  minor  issue  when
compared to the ADSC date change, it is an error which should be  corrected,
and her subsequent ISP effective dates should cycle  annually  on  23  July,
not 1 October.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 19 September 1980, applicant enlisted in the Reserve  of  the  Air  Force
(Obligated Reserve Section (ORS)) as an airman  basic  for  a  period  of  8
years.  She entered a contract and attended AFROTC from  September  1980  to
17 May 1984 incurring a 4-year obligation.  On 24 May  1984,  applicant  was
honorably discharged from USAFR enlisted status.

On 25 May 1984, applicant was commissioned as a  second  lieutenant  in  the
Reserve of the Air Force, Line officer.

On 25 July 1984, applicant transferred from Line officer to Medical  Service
Corp in the grade of second lieutenant.

Applicant entered an AFHPSP contract for the period 17 August 1984 to 8  May
1988.  She incurred an additional 4-year obligation.  Total  obligation  was
8 years.  Her ADSC date was established as 23 July 1998.  Her ISP  effective
date was established as 1 October 1994.

On 14 January 1988, applicant was selected for USAF  residency  training  in
pediatrics at Wilford Hall USAF Medical Center with a reporting date  of  15
June 1988.

On 12 February 1988, applicant was appointed Captain  (Medical  Corp  (MC)),
Reserve of the Air Force.

12 June 1988, she was ordered to extended active duty as a Captain (MC)  and
began internship and residency training  at  Wilford  Hall   Medical  Center
(WHMC) from 1 July 1988 to 30 June 1991.

On 14 January  1992,  applicant  accepted  her  selection  for  training  in
allergy/immunology in a redeferred status from 1 July 1992 to 30 June 1995.

On 12 June 1992, applicant was  released  from  active  duty,  Vol  Release:
Physicians Deferment Program, in the grade of captain.  She served  4  years
and 1 day of active service.

Applicant was in a civilian redeferred subspecialty fellowship  training  in
allergy/immunology at    University School of  Medicine  in  obligated  USAF
Reserve status from July 1992 - 30 June 1994.  Applicant’s ADSC remained  in
effect but was delayed during her additional training.

On 24 July 1994, applicant was ordered to extended active duty for a  period
of 47 months, 11 days.  Her category was  a  continuation  of  the  previous
HPSP sponsored status.

On 13 August 1997, AFPC/DPAME notified applicant that  as  a  result  of  an
audit conducted and her completion date of 30 June  1994  from  the  Allergy
Fellowship Training Program, her ADSC date is 10 June 2001.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Physician Education Branch, AFPC/DPAME, reviewed the  application
and states that the applicant signed the  Armed  Forces  Health  Professions
Scholarship Program (AFHPSP) Military  Service  Obligation  Contract  on  26
April 1984.  Paragraph 5a of  her  contract  states,  “Time  spent  in  this
training will be creditable toward my initial minimum term of  service,  but
not for my ADSC incurred as a result  of  HPSP...”   There  is  no  specific
mention in this paragraph regarding paying off  her  obligation  for  AFROTC
while training in a military facility.  Applicant  incurred  an  ADSC  of  8
years for the AFROTC and HPSP sponsorship.  Obligations cannot be  paid  off
while an individual is in a training  status.   DOD  Directives,  which  are
governed by public law state, “No portion of a prior obligation arising  out
of the expenditure of government funds for education  or  training  purposes
may be satisfied during any period of long-term training or  health  related
education or training.”  DOD Directive 6000.2, dated 19 March 1981,  was  in
effect  at  the  time  the  applicant  entered  training  in  Pediatrics  at
from 1 July 1988 - 30 June 1991.  Her contract does not state  she  can  pay
off her  AFROTC  obligation  during  training.   It  is  unclear  where  she
obtained the information that she could pay off her AFROTC obligation  while
in training.

Applicant  states  that  AFI  36-2107  was  retroactively  applied  to   her
contract.  This is not true.  DPAME maintains copies of previous AFR  36-51s
as  well  as  DOD  Directives  for  the  purpose  of  complying   with   all
AFHPSP/USUHS contracts regardless of when they were signed.   It  should  be
noted that AFR 36-51, in effect at the time the applicant signed her  AFHPSP
contract, states “No educational ADSC may  be  discharged  during  long-term
health education programs.”  Again there  is  no  mention  that  her  AFROTC
obligation could be paid off during Residency Training.

As a result of the applicant’s inquiry into her  special  pay  issue,  DPAME
discovered an error had been made in computing her ADSC.  Corrective  action
was taken and the applicant was informed in writing as required by  AFI  36-
2107 and the adjustment was made to the AF Personnel Main Frame.

AFPC/DPAME further states that  the  rules--and  in  the  applicant’s  case,
knowledge of these rules--in effect at the  time  an  individual  signs  her
contract should be binding on both the Air Force and the individual.   Since
the applicant signed her contract and made no mention  that  she  could  pay
off her AFROTC obligation, her request should be denied.  The  applicant  is
eligible to apply for separation under Palace Chase and they  recommend  she
do so.

A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachments, is attached at  Exhibit
C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states  her  application
is based upon the injustice of adding 3 years to her  ADSC  date  after  the
Air Force had led her to believe for years  that  her  ADSC  date  would  be
completed in July 1998.  The passages contained in her 2 March  1998  letter
to the BCMR describes how LtCol M---, one of Colonel H---’s predecessors  as
Chief of the Physician Education Branch, could have made the  original  ADSC
date calculation based upon ambiguously worded regulations and contracts  at
the time.  These passages are meant to illustrate how DPAME  may  have  made
the so called error in her records many  years  ago,  and  therefore  it  is
unjust to change an ADSC date upon  which  she  has  been  basing  her  life
plans.  She is fully aware that the current personnel in  the  DPAME  office
feels that LtCol M--- made an error which  they  felt  obligated  to  adjust
when they discovered it in August 1997.

Applicant's complete response is attached at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, General Law Division, Office of the Judge  Advocate  General,  HQ
USAF/JAG,  reviewed  this  application  and   states   that,   in   summary,
applicant’s ADSC for her ROTC and HPSP education is 10 June 2001.   Although
applicant’s 1984 HPSP contract is silent as to whether her ROTC ADSC may  be
discharged during the last two years of residency training,  her  1980  ROTC
contract specifically incorporates by reference the ADSC rules  in  AFR  36-
51.  AFR 36-51, Table 10, Rule 11, provided that for HPSP  graduates,  prior
educational ADSCs are not discharged during residency  training  leading  to
primary specialty board requirements.  That rule, which was consistent  with
the DOD Directive, remains in effect today in AFI 36-2107, Table 1.10,  Rule
8.  In their opinion, there has been neither an error nor injustice in  this
case.  Accordingly, they recommend that applicant’s request be denied.

A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachments, is attached at  Exhibit
G.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUTION:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states that the  primary
question remains: Because both contracts are vague on  this  issue  and  the
interpretations are contradictory, is LtCol  M---’s original  interpretation
and calculation of her ADSC date as 23 July 1998, any less valid than Ms. G-
--’s retroactive re-interpretation years later in August 1997, in which  she
added 3 years to her ADSC date (just because  she  (applicant)  happened  to
inquire about correcting her ISP  effective  date,  a  completely  unrelated
issue)?   The  injustice  lies  in   retroactively   re-interpreting   vague
contracts which has impacted seriously  on  her  family  and  career  plans.
While she appreciates AFPC has allowed her to remain at Travis AFB,  CA,  to
be close to her husband, while the AFBCMR review process  takes  place,  her
husband and she still have to maintain two separate  homes  because  of  the
commuting distances to their respective workplaces.  They see each other  on
weekends, which is preferable to a  transcontinental  situation  which  some
couples experience, but it is not how they envisioned their first  years  of
marriage when her original ADSC date was 23 July 1998.  They even  have  had
to delay contemplating having  children  due  to  their  current  geographic
separation.  Additionally, during the summer of  1997  before  AFPC  changed
her date of  separation  from  the  Air  Force,  she  was  interviewing  and
planning for civilian employment to begin in July  1998.   All  those  plans
changed irrevocably when AFPC decided to adjust the  mainframe  and  changed
her ADSC date.  She has  already  served  more  than  the  8  years  of  the
original ADSC and,  therefore,  has  fulfilled  the  return  on  investment.
While she appreciates the excellent on-the-job training which she  received,
her contributions as a member of the work force more than makes up  for  the
“return on investment.”  She does not believe that anyone on  the  receiving
end of a computer print-out which suddenly and unexpectedly adds 3 years  to
a military ADSC date would feel that he/she had been treated justly.

Applicant's complete response is attached at Exhibit I.

_________________________________________________________________

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 a change in  her  Active
Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) date incurred for  attendance  in  the  Armed
Forces Health Professions Scholarship Program (AFHPSP).   After  a  thorough
review of the evidence of record, the  majority  of  the  Board  finds  that
applicant has not provided sufficient  evidence  that  her  records  are  in
error or that she has been the victim of an  injustice.   The  Board  admits
that the issues involved concerning her ADSC date  are  confusing;  however,
the majority of the Board believes  that  the  detailed  advisory  from  the
Chief,  General  Law  Division,   adequately   addresses   the   applicant's
allegations.  Therefore, the majority of the Board agrees with the  opinions
and recommendations of the Air Force and adopt their rationale as the  basis
for their conclusions that the applicant has  not  been  the  victim  of  an
error or injustice.  As a matter of information, the Air Force  states  that
the applicant can apply for separation under the Palace Chase Program.

4.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to  demonstrate  the
existence of  probable  error  or  injustice  warranting  a  change  in  her
Incentive Special Pay (ISP) effective date.  In  this  respect,  it  appears
that her  ISP  date  was  established  in  accordance  with  the  applicable
regulations  when  she  entered  active  duty.   Applicant  was   informally
notified  that  her  ISP  date  was  correct.   She  has  not  provided  any
additional evidence showing that an error or  injustice  has  occurred.   In
view of the above determination, the Board finds  no  basis  upon  which  to
recommend favorable action on her request for a change to her ISP  effective
date.

5.    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 issue(s) involved.  Therefore,  the  request
for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:

A majority of the panel finds insufficient evidence of  error  or  injustice
warranting a change  in  the  applicant’s  Active  Duty  Service  Commitment
(ADSC) date.  The Board finds insufficient evidence of  error  or  injustice
warranting a change in her Incentive Special Pay (ISP) effective date.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in  Executive
Session on 13 July 1999 and 15 December 1999, under the  provisions  of  AFI
36-2603:

            Panel Chair
            Member
            Member
By a majority vote, the Board recommends denial of the  applicant’s  request
that her ADSC date be restored to 23  July  1998.   Mr.  Anderson  voted  to
grant the applicant’s request pertaining to her ADSC date  and  submits  two
Minority Reports.  The Board voted to deny the applicant’s request that  her
ISP effective date be corrected to 23 July 1994.  The following  documentary
evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 29 Mar 98, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPAME, dated 15 Apr 98, w/atch.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 18 May 98.
      Exhibit E.  Applicant’s Response, dated 11 Jun 98, w/atchs.
      Exhibit F.  Minority Report, dated 16 Jul 99.
      Exhibit G.  Letter, HQ USAF/JAG, dated 17 Sep 99, w/atchs.
      Exhibit H.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 27 Sep 99.
      Exhibit I.  Applicant’s Response, dated 22 Oct 99.
      Exhibit J.  Minority Report, dated 6 Jan 00.




                                  Panel Chair




MEMORANDUM FOR   THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD FOR
      CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)


FROM:  SAF/MIB

SUBJECT:  AFBCMR Case of XXXXX, XXXXXX

      I have carefully considered all the circumstances of this case,
including the rationale of the majority recommendation to deny the relief
requested by the above subject applicant.  However, I agree with the
minority member that the applicant’s request for a change in her Active
Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) date should be granted.  The reasons cited
in the Minority Report, in my opinion, substantiate that the applicant
relied on the information provided in regard to her ADSC for her attendance
in the Armed Forces Health Professions Scholarship Program (AFHPSP), when
making career decisions.

      The minority member believes that in his interpretation of the
applicable regulation, applicant's ADSC date should be changed.  While I
cannot determine, based on the information provided, whether or not the
changing of her ADSC date was in accordance with the applicable regulation,
I do believe that the applicant made career decisions based on the
information provided at the time she agreed to attend AFHPSP and the
changing of the ADSC date has caused the applicant to be the victim of an
injustice.

      In view of the above findings and the reasons cited in the Minority
Report, I direct that the applicant’s ADSC date be corrected as set forth
in the attached directive.  I agree with the Board’s recommendation
concerning the applicant’s request for a change in her Incentive Special
Pay (ISP) effective date; therefore, this portion of her appeal is not
approved.




                                        JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                        Director
                                        Air Force Review Boards Agency



AFBCMR 98-00916




MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

      Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force
Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section
1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:

      The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to XXXXX, XXXXXX, be corrected to show that she incurred an Active
Duty Service Commitment of 23 July 1998, as a result of her attendance in
the Armed Forces Health Professions Scholarship Program.





                                        Director
                                        Air Force Review Boards Agency


AFBCMR 98-00916





MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD
                 FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)

SUBJECT:  AFBCMR Application of XXXXXX, XXXXX

      I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the
recommendation of the Board members.  A majority found that applicant had
not provided sufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommended the
case be denied.  I concur with that finding and their conclusion that
relief is not warranted.  Accordingly, I accept their recommendation that
the application be denied.

      Please advise the applicant accordingly.




                                        Director
                                        Air Force Review Boards Agency