RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-02888
INDEX CODE: 113.04
COUNSEL: None
HEARING DESIRED: No
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His date of separation (DOS) be changed from 28 July 2000 to 28 July 1999.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He received erroneous information during his recruitment at USAF Health
Professions Recruiting Office in San Juan, PR. His recruiter miscalculated
the compensation he was going to be entitled to upon entering active duty
service after completion of his Diagnostic Radiology residency in 1996.
His recruiter overestimated his pay by $8,000 per year by including the
Multi-year Specialty Pay (MSP). A fair settlement would be a partial
waiver of his active duty service commitment (ADSC) and accepting his
separation from the Air Force on 28 July 1999. He is not interested in
monetary compensation, but in a change of separation.
Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is currently serving on extended active duty in the grade of
major, Medical Service Corp (MSC).
On 3 September 1993, applicant was selected to participate in the Armed
Forces Health Professions Scholarship and Financial Assistance Program
(AFHPS/FAP) in Diagnostic Radiology for the period 1 October 1993 to 30
June 1996, at the University District Hospital, San Juan, PR. He incurred
a four year ADSC as a result of this sponsorship.
On 29 July 1996, applicant entered active duty and his ADSC and DOS were
established as 28 July 2000.
On 27 October 1997, applicant requested his release from active duty
stating Miscellaneous Reasons for the reason for action requested.
On 29 December 1997, the Secretary of the Air Force declined to accept the
applicant’s resignation tendered on 27 October 1997. The Secretary
determined that the AFHPSP/FAP provided by the Air Force to the applicant
constitutes high cost training and the resignation of applicant prior to
completion of the ADSC for high cost training is not considered to be in
the best interest of the Air Force.
On 15 April 1998, applicant requested a formal investigation to the AFRS/JA
into the pay issue.
On 24 September 1998, Vice Commander, Air Force Recruiting Service, stated
in a letter to the applicant that “...your recruiter overestimated your pay
by $8,000 per year by indicating you would receive Multi-year Specialty Pay
(MSP)....However, there was no indication your recruiter intentionally
misled you in order to entice you to enter the Air Force.”
The total cost of the AFHPSP/FAP provided by the Air Force to the applicant
was $80,060.44.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Chief, Physician Education Branch, AFPC/DPAME, reviewed the application
and states that if the AFBCMR approves to separate applicant earlier than
29 July 2000, no recoupment action should be initiated. As a recipient of
the Financial Assistance Program, the educational expenses paid by the Air
Force, including the monthly stipend and annual grant received are
considered sustainment and cannot be recouped. They defer to the AFBCMR
for a final disposition; however, the fact that ADSCs are based on training
not salary should be taken into consideration.
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant
on 16 November 1998, for review and response. As of this date, no response
has been received by this office.
_________________________________________________________________
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 a probable error or an injustice sufficiently egregious to
warrant favorable action on the applicant’s request for a reduction in his
ADSC. Applicant contends that he agreed to join the military for four
years because his recruiter led him to believe that his pay would be
$8,000.00 more per year; and that a fair settlement would be a partial
waiver of his ADSC and acceptance of his separation from the Air Force on
July 28, 1999. We disagree. The fact that his Air Force Recruiter
underestimated his total entitlements is not in dispute. What is in
dispute, however, is whether or not it was reasonable for him to have
relied on an “estimation” of his total entitlements if this amount were
crucial to his decision to elect to attend the training at the time. The
dictionary defines estimate as a tentative evaluation or a rough
calculation. The word itself would seem to place a reasonable person on
notice that the actual amount might vary one way or the other when
calculated by an official source. We recognize that this appears to have
been the applicant’s initial contact with the Air Force and he may have put
too much faith in an Air Force recruiter even though he could only provide
him an estimate. On the other hand, prior to his entrance into the medical
program, he was contacted by an official source (AFPC) and advised of the
service commitment involved for attending the training. If the total
amount of pay estimated by the recruiter was crucial to his decision, he
could have or should have sought confirmation in writing from the official
source that offered him the training prior to agreeing to attend. The fact
that he did not supports the conclusion that the total amount of pay was
not the sole and exclusive reason for the applicant’s decision to attend
the government-sponsored training at the time. Therefore, while it is
indeed regrettable that the applicant’s recruiter underestimated his total
entitlements, absent evidence that the recruiter acted in bad faith, we are
not convinced that equity or justice dictate relieving the applicant of his
obligation to provide a fair return for the high cost medical training he
received.
_________________________________________________________________
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 of newly discovered relevant
evidence not considered with this application.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive
Session on 11 May 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
Mr. Edward C. Koenig, III, Member
Mr. Michael V. Barbino, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 5 Oct 98, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPAME, dated 5 Nov 98, w/atch.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 16 Nov 98.
CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
Panel Chair
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-01454 INDEX CODE: 128.05 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His active duty obligation for sponsorship in the Armed Forces Health Professions Scholarship Program (AFHPSP) be fulfilled prior to his active duty obligation for sponsorship in the Air Force Academy (USAFA). In support of his...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04519
Instead, he cites a provision of the AFFAP SOU contending a review of Air Force Recruiting Service (AFRS) records revealed no evidence of false statements or promises for base salary with MSP. The statement indicating that a review of AFRS records found no evidence of false statements or promises of base salary to include MSP offered by recruiter provides little in determination of an error and injustice in this case. The fact that other Air Force physician received such a document that...
_________________________________________________________________ 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. A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit G. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2001-00295
The applicant’s rebuttal, with attachments, is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, General Law Division, HQ USAF/JAG, noted that Section 2005 provides for recoupment if a member fails to complete the ADSC voluntarily or due to misconduct. On 14 Aug 01, DFAS-POCC/DE advised the applicant that, based on her placement on the TDRL, it was inappropriate at this time to recoup monies which might not be owed if...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Physician Education Branch, HQ AFPC/DPAME, reviewed this application and states that applicant signed her Health Professions Scholarship Program Contract (HPSP), thereby agreeing to the terms of the contract. Thus, by reports or physical examination required by the service, with results known to the service, the service in 1987 and again in 1989 knew of applicant’s endometriosis and further...
Furthermore, the Air Force indicates that AFI 36-2107, Table 28, Rule 36, does not apply because the fellowship training was non- Graduate Medical Education (GME) related; however, the DPMAE Educational PCS Request reflects, “Active Duty GME to GME.” In view of this, and based on the statement from the individual that miscounseled the applicant, a majority of the Board believes the interest of equity and justice can best be served by correcting the applicant’s records to reflect that the...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-04303
The initial action, taken by the Air Force, in disqualifying her from the scholarship program required her to drop out of medical school and resign her commission. On 19 November 1999, the applicant’s 30 August 1999 resignation was accepted by the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC). It was only after she informed the Air Force of her decision to drop out of medical school that she was told she could not be discharged for depression and that the information and guidance...
The applicant’s initial USUHS contract would govern any ADSC associated with educational programs regardless of the time he actually enters training. DPAME also noted that current and past regulatory guidance is that obligation for civilian sponsorship is always served consecutively to any pre-existing ADSC. Actually, the regulation he was provided did indicate a consecutive obligation for civilian sponsored training, although his ADSC is governed by the language in his contract.
Had the applicant been told prior to signing his AFHPSP contract, that he would still have to serve an additional four years for his AFROTC scholarship, he would not have accepted the AFHPSP contract. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that his four-year Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC), incurred as a result of his Air...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-02932
The Armed Forces Health Professions Scholarship Program (AFHPSP) contract the applicant signed specifically states that if a member is separated prior to completing a period of active duty that was agreed upon to serve, the member may be subject to recoupment of educational funds. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice;...