RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  00-02055
            INDEX NUMBER:  128.10

      XXXXXXXXXXXX     COUNSEL:  None

      XXX-XX-XXXX      HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her indebtedness to the government in the amount of  $27,401.42  be
cancelled.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She  did  not  have  a   medical   condition   that   was   service
disqualifying.

Her due  process  rights  were  violated  in  that  her  letter  of
7 January 1995 was  not  considered  by  all  designated  reviewing
authorities prior to a decision to effect recoupment.

Her service contract authorizes the Air Force to recoup educational
expenses if she fails to perform the active duty requirement of the
contract, but no such active duty requirement  had  arisen  at  the
time the decision was made to effect recoupment.

The action of the Secretary  of  the  Air  Force  in  her  case  is
inconsistent with the policy and actions taken by the Secretary  of
the Army and the Secretary of the Navy in similar cases during  the
time in question.

Fundamental fairness, given all  the  circumstances  of  her  case,
dictates that recoupment action not be taken.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

According to the applicant’s personnel records,  she  was  accepted
into the Air Force component of the Armed Forces Health Professions
Scholarship  and  Financial  Assistance  Program   (AFHPS/FAP)   on
12 Dec 91 and accepted a commission as a second lieutenant for  her
participation.

On 15 Jul 94,  the  ARPC  Surgeon  found  the  applicant  medically
disqualified for continued military service due to a  diagnosis  of
Vaso-Vagal Syncope and Dysthemia and recommended her discharge.

The Director of Personnel notified her on 27 Oct 94 that  the  ARPC
Commander had initiated  action  to  determine  if  she  should  be
discharged from her appointment as  a  Reserve  officer  due  to  a
determination that she was physically  disqualified  for  worldwide
military service.  The applicant  was  advised  that  an  honorable
discharge was the only type authorized in her case.

She responded to the notification on 1 Nov 94 and elected to submit
comments but elected not to have her case considered by a  Physical
Disqualification  Review  Board.   The  applicant  was  granted  an
extension of time until 16 Dec  94  to  submit  her  comments.   On
14 Dec 94, the applicant’s counsel requested an additional delay in

the processing of the discharge proceedings until 17 Jan  95.   The
request was approved.  On 9 Jan 95, ARPC/DP recommended to the ARPC
commander that the applicant be honorably discharged from  the  Air
Force Reserve.  The ARPC commander approved the  recommendation  on
9 Jan 95.

On 11 Jan 95, the  applicant’s  case  file  was  forwarded  to  the
Secretary of  the  Air  Force  Personnel  Council  (SAFPC)  with  a
recommendation that the Secretary of the Air Force  (SECAF)  direct
recoupment in the amount of $27, 401.42 expended on the applicant’s
education.  On 17 Jan 95, a letter submitted by the applicant dated
7 Jan 95 was forwarded to SAFPC for consideration  along  with  her
case file.

On 19 Jan 95, the Deputy Director, SAFPC, advised  that  the  SECAF
directed that recoupment action be taken against the  applicant  to
reimburse the United States Government for the  funds  expended  on
her AFHPSP education.  On 26 Jan 95, she was  honorably  discharged
from all appointments in the United States Air Force.
___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Associate Dean, Health Care Education, AFIT/CIM, evaluated this
request and recommends denial of the applicant’s request.

The 1992 version of the AFHPSP contract  signed  by  the  applicant
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.”   The  applicant
rightfully owes the funds spent  on  her  educational  expenses  by
virtue of this contract.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to  the  applicant
on 1 September 2000 for review and  comment  within  30  days.   To
date, a response has not been received.

___________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The  AFBCMR  Medical  Consultant  was  asked  to  comment  on   the
applicant’s  contention  that  she  did  not   have   a   medically
disqualifying condition when she was removed from the AFHPSP.

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant states that the applicant clearly had
conditions that precluded commissioning and service on active  duty
as defined in  AFI  48-123,  Medical  Examinations  and  Standards.
While concurring with the applicant  in  noting  that  active  duty
members may be retained while using certain medications for various
conditions, the Medical Consultant points out  that  standards  are
different  for  retention   versus   appointment   or   enlistment.
Favorable  consideration  of  the  applicant’s   request   is   not
recommended  regardless  of  what  statements  were  made  by   the
applicant’s physicians in the course of her evaluation in 1993-94.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

A redacted copy of a recent decision by the Assistant Secretary  of
the  Air  Force  (Manpower,  Reserve  Affairs,  Installations,  and
Environment) in a similar case was also provided to  the  applicant
(Exhibit E).

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT”S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

A copy of the  additional  Air  Force  evaluation  and  the  recent
decision by the Assistant Secretary were forwarded to the applicant
on 9 Jan 01 for her review and comment within 30 days.  To date the
applicant has not responded.  In March, copies were  also  sent  to
the applicant’s attorney of record.   On  27  March  2001,  counsel
responded that he no longer represented the applicant (Exhibit F.).
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.  We  took
notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits
of  the  case;  however,   we   agree   with   the   opinions   and
recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary  responsibility
and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that  the
applicant has not been the victim of an error  or  injustice.   The
contract that the applicant  signed  is  very  straightforward  and
clear about the terms for recoupment.  While we can understand  the
basis of the applicant’s belief that she did  not  have  a  medical
condition that was  service  disqualifying,  we  believe  that  the
advisory opinion provided by the AFBCMR Medical Consultant  clearly
establishes that her condition  was,  in  fact,  disqualifying  for
appointment and service on active  duty.   Finally,  based  on  the
rationale expressed in the 12 Oct 00 Memorandum from the  Assistant
Secretary of the Air Force in a similar case, the applicant has not
shown that her  medical  disqualification  will  prevent  her  from
earning a livelihood as a doctor.  Therefore,  in  the  absence  of
evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to  recommend
granting the relief sought in this application.

4.  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
of newly discovered relevant  evidence  not  considered  with  this
application.

___________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this  application  in
Executive Session on 24 April 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:

      Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Vice Chair
      Mr. Mike Novel, Member
      Mr. Billy C. Baxter, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 26 Jul 00, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFIT/CIM, dated 17 Aug 00, w/atch.
    Exhibit D.  Memorandum, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated
                8 Jan 01.
    Exhibit E.  Memorandum, SAF/MI, dated 12 Oct 00.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant’s Counsel, dated 27 Mar 01.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 1 Sep 00.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 9 Jan 01.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Vice Chair