RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  00-01885
            INDEX CODE:  128.10

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The debt he incurred as a result of his medical disqualification  from
the Health Professions Scholarship Program (HPSP), in  the  amount  of
$14,783.31 be cancelled.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The reason for his discharge,  recurrent  nephritis,  is  inconsistent
with his working diagnosis, minimal change nephritic syndrome.

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant was tendered an indefinite appointment as a Reserve  of  the
Air Force on 16 July 1992 in the grade of second lieutenant.

On 29 June 1994,  it  was  reported  that  applicant  suffers  from  a
recurrence of nephrotic  syndrom.   On  8  July  1994,  he  was  found
medically disqualified for commissioning; his  benefits  were  stopped
effective 7 July 1994.   On  1  August  1994,  the  Commandant,  AFIT,
withdrew applicant from  HPSP.   On  25  August  1994,  he  was  found
medically disqualified under  AFR  160-43,  paragraph  4-21f.   On  28
September 1994, discharge  action  was  initiated  based  on  physical
disqualification.  Applicant acknowledged receipt  of  the  notice  of
proposed discharge action and his rights and options.  He elected  not
to apply for transfer to the Retired Reserve or comment, and  declined
legal counsel.  On 9 January 1995, it  was  recommended  and  approved
that he be honorably discharged from the Air Force Reserve and that he
be furnished an Honorable Discharge Certificate.  On 19 January  1995,
the Secretary of the Air Force  directed  that  recoupment  action  be
taken in the  case  of  applicant.   On  26  January  1995,  applicant
relieved  from  assignment   and   honorably   discharged   from   all
appointments in the United States Air Force.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief Medical Consultant, AFBCMR,  reviewed  the  application  and
states that the contractual agreement signed for entry to HPSP studies
provides for recoupment for any situation that  precludes  fulfillment
of obligations.  While the applicant’s renal  problem  may  have  been
overlooked for  admission  to  the  program,  this  was  done  on  the
assumption that permanent remission would  remain,  a  situation  that
unfortunately did not happen.  Recurrence of a pre-existing  condition
that required waiver does  constitute  a  valid  reason  to  hold  the
applicant  to  the  terms  of  his  HPSP  contract,  as  his  original
acceptance to the program was based on good faith belief that  he  was
in permanent remission and that future problems  would  not  occur  to
interfere with performance of his duties.   The  applicant  was  fully
aware on entry to the HPSP that medical disqualification would  render
him susceptible to recoupment.  This reviewer concludes that favorable
consideration of this request should not be granted and  is  therefore
of the opinion that no change in the  records  is  warranted  and  the
application should be denied.

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

The Associate Dean, Health  Care  Education,  AFIT/CIM,  reviewed  the
application and states that the applicant was  medically  disqualified
from the Health Professions Scholarship Program (HPSP) by the  ARPC/SG
on 19 January 1995, with a diagnosis of recurrent nephritis.

The 1992 version of the HPSP contract applicant signed,  included  the
following paragraph:  “If I am dropped from  any  professional  school
for deficiency in studies or conduct; or if, for other reasons, I must
repeat an academic period or discontinue my professional education; or
if I refuse to comply with or fail to meet the applicable standards of
the United States Air Force (including  physical  fitness),  or  if  I
otherwise fail to complete  my  obligation(s)  under  this  agreement,
then…the Air Force may, at its option,  separate  me  and  recoup  the
total cost of advanced education in  lieu  of  calling  me  to  active
duty.”  (Paragraph 10, 10c).  They state the applicant rightfully owes
the funds spent on him for educational  expenses  by  virtue  of  this
contract.

AFIT hereby recommends recoupment of any and  all  funds  expended  on
applicant.

A complete copy of their evaluation, with attachment, is  attached  at
Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and commented on  all
of them.  He states that the AFBCMR Medical Consultant is incorrect in
listing overweight as one of  his  disqualifying  conditions  at  HPSP
entrance.  He states that he did not pass an  initial  exam  based  on
weight, but after weight loss and improved physical fitness, he passed
a second exam at a later date based on weight reduction and  body  fat
reduction.  Therefore, he was in compliance with acceptance  standards
upon entry to the program.

He states that it is clear to him after  reading  the  AFBCMR  Medical
Consultant’s review that his case was mishandled from the beginning by
the Air Force.  He states that the Medical Consultant reports that the
only waiver was for the knee condition,  but  that  it  was  not  even
endorsed at AETC levels.  He states that it appears that  no  official
waiver was granted for the  Minimal  Change  Nephrotic  Syndrome.   He
states this concerns him greatly because his  recruiters  led  him  to
believe that both conditions had been waived through  the  appropriate
channels.  Furthermore, he was led to believe that  waived  conditions
were handled more leniently once in the program.  In reference to  the
AFBCMR  Medical  Consultant  reporting  that  overlooking  the   renal
condition on admission to the program, was done on the assumption that
permanent remission would remain…  He  states  that  that  message  is
clearly  different  than  the  message  being  portrayed  during   the
recruiting process.  He states maybe he was too naïve in trusting what
he was told, but he now believes  that  he  was  accepted  with  false
assurances.  He states, all in all, the  AFBCMR  Medical  Consultant’s
comments suggest that he should have never been eligible for the  HPSP
program.  He can assure you, knowing what he knows now, he would  have
rather been turned down for the program up front  as  opposed  to  how
things have played out.

He  respectfully  disagrees  with  the  AFBCMR  Medical   Consultant’s
assertion that the distinction between Recurrent Nephritis and Minimal
Change Nephrotic Syndrome is irrelevant.  He states as he  has  stated
in other correspondence,  this  distinction  is  considerable  from  a
prognostic standpoint.

He wanted to clarify that he received no benefits from the  Air  Force
after his disqualification was final.  He also reiterates that section
10  does  not   address   waived   medical   conditions   or   medical
disqualifications per se.  He states, nonetheless, it is being used as
the grounds for recommending that he be responsible for repayment.

Applicant's complete response is attached at Exhibit F.

On 27 November 2000, the Board forwarded to the applicant, for  review
and comments within 30 days, a redacted copy of a recent decision made
by the Assistant Secretary on a similar case.

A copy of AFBCMR letter, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.    The applicant has exhausted all remedies  provided  by  existing
law or regulations.

2.    The application was not timely filed;  however,  it  is  in  the
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the  existence  of  probable   error   or   injustice.     Applicant’s
contentions are duly noted; however, the majority of the  Board  finds
no evidence of error in this case and after thoroughly  reviewing  the
documentation that  has  been  submitted  in  support  of  applicant’s
appeal, the majority of the Board does not  believe  he  has  suffered
from an  injustice.   Applicant’s  contentions  have  been  adequately
addressed by the appropriate Air Force office and the majority of  the
Board agrees with their comments and recommendations and  adopt  their
rationale as the basis for their conclusion that the applicant has not
been the victim of an error or injustice.  Therefore, in  the  absence
of evidence to the contrary, the majority finds no basis to  recommend
granting the relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:

A majority of the  panel  finds  insufficient  evidence  of  error  or
injustice and recommends the application be denied.
_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 23 January 2001, under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

            Mr. Robert W. Zook, Panel Chair
            Mr. Robert S. Boyd, Member
            Mr. Edward C. Koenig, III, Member

By a majority vote, the Board recommended denial of  the  application.
Mr. Boyd voted to correct the records and  has  submitted  a  Minority
Report which is attached at  Exhibit  H.   The  following  documentary
evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 24 Jun 00, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dtd 11 Aug 00.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, AFIT/CIM, dtd 18 Sep 00, w/atch.
      Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dtd 5 Oct 00.
      Exhibit F.  Applicant’s Response, dtd 29 Nov 00.
      Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dtd 27 Nov 00, w/atch.
      Exhibit H.  Minority Report.




                                   ROBERT W. ZOOK
                                   Panel Chair




AFBCMR 00-01885
INDEX CODE:  128.10




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

SUBJECT:  AFBCMR Application of

      I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the
recommendation of the Board members.  A majority found that applicant
had not provided substantial 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.




                                        JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                        Director
                                        Air Force Review Boards Agency

AFBCMR 00-02513


MEMORANDUM FOR THE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE REVIEW BOARDS AGENCY

SUBJECT:, DOCKET NO:  00-01885

         The above subject applicant requested that the debt he incurred as
a result of his medical disqualification from the Health Professions
Scholarship Program (HPSP), in the amount of $14,783.31, be cancelled.


         The majority of the Board voted to deny the requested relief
because he knew that upon entering the HPSP any medical disqualification
would render him susceptible to recoupment of his educational benefits.
For the following reasons, I do not agree that the relief requested should
be denied.

                1.  When he was accepted for HPSP, he had three
disqualifying conditions.  It appears that these conditions were waived at
the MEPS station; however, the only waiver found in his record was for his
knee condition.  I note that this waiver was not approved by the proper
medical authorities.  The Air Force states that the applicant was not
eligible to enter the program in question.

                2.  At the time he applied for HPSP, the applicant did not
attempt to conceal his medical conditions and acted in good faith when he
signed his HPSP contract.  Therefore, I believe it is unjust, under these
circumstances, to force recoupment of his educational benefits.

                3.  I note the case in which the former SAF/MI overturned a
Board’s recommendation involving recoupment of educational benefits.
However, the circumstances of that case appear somewhat different from the
one before this panel.  At no time did the applicant attempt to hide any
information from the government so that he could enter HPSP.  Furthermore,
the applicant was provided a waiver of his medical conditions prior to
entering HPSP. I find the government at fault in allowing an individual who
was not physically qualified to attend HPSP, resulting in his incurring a
debt of over $14,000.

         In view of the above comments, I belief that the applicant has
established that he has been the victim of an injustice and the relief
requested should be granted.  To do otherwise, in my opinion, would violate
our charter.




                  ROBERT S. BOYD

                  Panel Member