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).
___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Physicians in the US Army are allowed to serve  commitments  in  a  sequence
other than “first acquired,  first  served.”   This  allows  them  to  serve
medical commitments first making them eligible for multiyear  specialty  pay
(MSP) without  further  consecutive  commitment  (it  is  concurrent  if  no
medical commitment exists).  Air Force physicians must  fulfill  commitments
on a first acquire, first served basis  making  medical  commitments  served
last and any commitment associated with a MSP consecutive,  not  concurrent.
In essence, Army physicians can earn up  to  $14,000  more  than  Air  Force
physicians.

In support of his application, he submits copies of a DD Form 149  dated  22
Oct 98, a Army surgeon advisory opinion dated 7 Dec  98,  a  Army  Board  of
Correction proceedings dated 24 Mar 99,  and  a  Army  Review  Board  Agency
order dated 19 Jun 99 (Exhibit A).

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

After graduating from the  Air  Force  Academy,  completion  of  the  Health
Professional Scholarship Program and a five-year  Orthopedic  residency  and
fellowship, the applicant entered active duty on 29 July 1996 in  the  grade
of major with a date of rank of 2 May 1996.

The relevant facts  pertaining  to  this  application,  extracted  from  the
applicant's military records, are contained in the letter  prepared  by  the
appropriate office of the Air Force.   Accordingly,  there  is  no  need  to
recite these facts in this Record of Proceedings.

___________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Physician Education Branch,  AFPC/DPAME,  indicated  the  applicant  was
sponsored through the USAFA 1982-1986, resulting in a  five-year  commitment
and was further sponsored through AFHPSP from  1986-1990,  resulting  in  an
additional   four-year    commitment.     His    total    obligation    upon
completion/sponsorship for his undergraduate degree and medical  school  was
nine years.

Member was approved for deferment from entering active duty  from  1990-1995
to complete Orthopedic residency and again  from  1995-1996  to  complete  a
fellowship in Orthopedic Foot/Ankle Surgery.   He  entered  active  duty  to
begin serving his nine year obligation on 29 Jul 96.

DPAME states that active duty service commitments  (ADSC)  are  governed  by
Title 10,  DOD  Instruction  and  implemented  by  Air  Force  policy.   The
applicant received monetary benefits for  both  programs  and  received  the
appropriate ADSC associated with the training.  The ADSC was calculated  and
executed  correctly  (first  incurred,  first  paid  off)   by   DPAME   and
implemented upon the applicant’s accession onto active duty.  The  rules  in
effect at the time an individual signs his contract  should  be  binding  on
both the Air Force and the individual.  The applicant’s  contract  indicates
he was fully aware of the rules.  Since he signed his contract, his  request
has no merit.

The example the member submitted referencing  an  Army  officer’s  education
sponsorship is not similar to his case.  The ADSCs are different  since  the
obligations  were  incurred  from  different   programs.    Army   Personnel
confirmed that the two Services are  executing  the  ADSC  similarly  (first
incurred, first paid off) and according to AFPC/DPAM1 (Special Pay  Branch),
any USAF officer is eligible for MSP if the  member  has  8  years  credible
service or if no ADSC exists for medical education.  However, the  ADSC  for
MSP is served consecutive to all other active duty obligations  (ADO).  This
is consistent  with  Army  policy  as  well.   Therefore,  DPAME  recommends
disapproval of the applicant's request (Exhibit C).

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states that he is  aware
of the contracts he signed and has  no  intention  of  being  relieved  from
fulfilling them.  While the  contracts  state  that  his  ADSCs  are  to  be
fulfilled  consecutively,  they  do  not  state  that  the  service  academy
commitment has to be fulfilled prior to the HPSP commitment.   He  indicates
that if his medical school ADSC were served first, he would have  signed  up
for a 4 year MSP and served that  commitment  concomitantly  with  his  non-
medical ADSC.  Despite the policy change on  1  Jan  99  requiring  all  MSP
obligations to be served consecutively with  all  ADOs,  he  entered  active
duty fully trained and willing to serve his ADSCs  in  1996.   As  such,  he
expects the policies in effect at the time to remain  until  his  ADSCs  are
completed (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.   We  took  notice   of   the
applicant's  complete  submission  in  judging  the  merits  of  the   case,
including documentation related to a decision by the Army  Correction  Board
which the applicant asserts is similar to his case.  We are of  the  opinion
that this evidence was neither similar nor germane to the applicant's  case.
 Furthermore, the applicant has provided no evidence that would lead  us  to
believe his ADSCs were computed in a manner contrary to  the  provisions  of
the pertinent Air Force and DoD directives, which  implement  the  law,  or,
that he was treated differently  than  other  similarly  situated  officers.
Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation  of  the  Air  Force
office 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.  In  the  absence  of  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 15 August 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Joseph G. Diamond, Panel Chair
      Mr. Grover L. Dunn, Member
      Mr. John E. B. Smith, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 20 May 01 w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPAME, dated 21 Jun 01.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 29 Jun 01.
    Exhibit E.  Apllicant’s Response, dated 13 Jul 01.



                                   JOSEPH G. DIAMOND
                                   Panel Chair