. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-01714
INDEX NUMBER: 128.06
COUNSEL: Victor R. Schwanbeck
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Multi-Year Special Pay (MSP) contract and the commitment he
incurred be retracted and that he be allowed to pay back the $6000.00
bonus.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
When he signed the contract, he was not aware, nor was he counseled
that he would incur a two-year consecutive commitment. Applicant
states that he believed that his commitment would be two years from
date of acceptance, therefore extending his commitment from 19 May
2001 to 30 October 2001. He further states that he was led to believe
by orderly room personnel that the resulting active duty service
commitment (ADSC) would run concurrently with his ADSC for his Air
Force sponsored medical training, resulting in a five-month extension
rather than a two-year concurrent commitment.
In support of his appeal, the applicant submitted letters from his
group commander, medical staff chief, Anesthesia Element chief, and a
co-worker.
Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Information extracted from the Personnel Data System (PDS) indicates
that the applicant’s total active federal commission service date
(TAFCSD) is 19 May 1990. He is currently serving in the grade of
major, having been promoted to that grade, effective 19 May 1996.
Documentation provided by the applicant reflects that on 7 Sep
1999, he executed a Multi-Year Special Pay (MSP) Agreement, effective
1 Oct 1999. His ADSC for his medical school training is 16 May 2001.
After signing the MSP agreement, he incurred an ADSC of 16 May 2003.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Special Pay Section, reviewed this application on 20 Jul 00, and
recommended disapproval. They state that MSP is offered to active
duty Air Force physicians as a retention tool; that the applicant
executed the contract and received one payment of his retention bonus.
They further state that the completed agreement clearly states “ADSC
under this agreement will be the day following completion of existing
ADSC for any medical education and training.” They noted that
applicant properly executed the agreement which stated the provisions
of the associated active duty obligation and projected staffing in the
applicant’s specialty are based on his retainability to 16 May 2003.
A complete copy of the advisory is attached at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 3 Oct 00, counsel for the applicant reviewed the Air Force
evaluation and provided an eight-page response, with attachments.
A complete copy of the response from applicant’s counsel is attached
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 probable error or injustice. After a thorough review
of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are
unpersuaded that relief should be granted. Applicant’s contentions
are duly noted; however, we do not find these assertions, in and of
themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided
by the Air Force. In addition, we believe it was the applicant’s
responsibility to verify any information he was unsure of with regard
to any associated active duty obligation before executing his request
for the two-year MSP agreement. We therefore adopt the rationale
expressed by the Air Force as the basis for our decision that the
applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he suffered either an
error or an injustice. In the absence of persuasive evidence to the
contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief
sought in this application.
_________________________________________________________________
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 13 December 2000, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mrs. Barbara A. Westgate, Vice Chair
Mr. Daniel F. Wenker, Member
Ms. Marcia J. Bachman, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 13 Jun 00, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPAMF1, dated 20 Jul 00.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 25 Aug 00.
Exhibit E. Letter, Counsel’s Response, dated 3 Oct 00,
w/atchs.
BARBARA A. WESTGATE
Vice Chair
They stated the evidence submitted by applicant proves the Air Force committed an error when it misadvised him about the time he would have to serve in the Air Force when executing a contract and recommended the relief be granted (Exhibit I). ___________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: After again reviewing this application, the new evidence provided in support of the appeal, and the evaluations prepared by AFPC/JA and HQ USAF/SG, a majority...
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-2004-01372
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-01372 INDEX NUMBER: 128.06 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The four year Multi-Year Special Pay (MSP)/Multi-Year Incentive Special Pay (MSIP) agreements he signed on 1 October 2003, be changed to two-year agreements, and the Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) associated...
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.
By accepting the ASP payment, the member incurs an active duty service commitment (ADSC) to remain on active duty for one year from the date payment is received. DPAMFl stated that if the applicant would have signed his initial ASP agreement, instead of the declination statement, this would have been evidence of his intent to remain on active duty for the given period of time regardless of the outcome of his hospitalization. JA also noted that, during his active duty time in 1992,...
___________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Applicant was counseled on and voluntarily accepted a two-year ADSC for TA via the AF Form 63, Officer ADSC Counseling Statement, on 8 December 1998 and 9 March 1999. Each form clearly advises the applicant against accepting any ADSC information other than that contained in the form (i.e., promises implied or otherwise, concerning the possibility or probability of retirement or separation prior to...
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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100014704
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 15 February 2011 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20100014704 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant states he had always been told that he could not get MSP/MISP until his Active Duty Service Obligation (ADSO) was completed, which was 18 October 2010. In an advisory opinion obtained from the OTSG it was stated that MSP/MISP agreements requires completion of all education and training obligations or 8 years of creditable service.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050014504C070206
The Chief AMEDD Special Pay Branch points out that in accordance with Title 37, United States Code, one component of the eligibility criteria for the MSP retention bonus requires at least eight years of creditable service from their Health Professions Pay Entry Date (HPPED) –or- has completed any active duty service commitment incurred for medical education and training. The Chief, AMEDD Special Pay Branch, OTSG, has opined that the applicant is eligible to execute a two year MSP on any...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02380
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02380 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He receive retro-active Additional Special Pay (ASP) for 2012 and 2013. ASP is not indicated on the MSP/MISP contract, nor was the rate for ASP annotated on the MSP/MISP contract that the member states he mistakenly assumed was included. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented...