RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  01-02043
            INDEX CODE:  113.04

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Active Duty  Service  Commitment  (ADSC)  date  for  his  civilian
sponsored fellowship training be changed from 5 May 05 to 5 May 03.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He believes that the contractual process in his  case  was  ambiguous,
both factually and materially.  He signed an official Air  Force  ADSC
commitment statement but did  so  with   both  limited  and  incorrect
knowledge, which at the time he believed was sufficient.  He  believes
his ADSC should end two years earlier than  the  Air  Force  Personnel
Center (AFPC) believes it should.  This has cost  him  four  to  eight
thousand dollars in multi-year special pay (MSP).

In  support  of  his  appeal,  the  applicant  provided  an   expanded
statement, an extract from AFI 36-2107, his ADSC statement, and  other
documents associated with the matter under review.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the
letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Medical Service Officer Management Division, AFPC/DPAMF2  provided
an advisory opinion from the Physician Education Branch  (AFPC/DPAME),
who reviewed this application and  recommended  denial.   DPAME  noted
that the  applicant  was  sponsored  through  the  Uniformed  Services
University of the Health Sciences (USUHS) from 1986-1990, resulting in
a seven-year commitment.  He was selected by the 1989 Graduate Medical
Education Selection Board (GMESB) for a Transitional Year  program  at
Wilford Hall Medical Center (WHMC) from 1990-1991,  which  he  started
upon completing medical school.  From 1991 to 1993 he  served  in  the
field, paying off two years of his seven-year USUHS  ADSC.   The  1992
GMESB selected member for his Ophthalmology residency training program
at WHMC from 1993-1996.   The  Ophthalmology  consultant  requested  a
special  selection  board,  which  convened  at  AFPC,  to  allow  the
applicant to enter the civilian match and secure a  program  beginning
1 Jul 96.  The board convened on 3  Oct  95,  and  the  applicant  was
selected for civilian sponsorship in  Retina/Uveitis  from  1996-1998.
In accordance with his 1986 USUHS contract,  he  incurred  a  two-year
consecutive obligation for the civilian sponsored fellowship.  He  was
provided written notification from HQ AFPC/DPAME on 5 Oct 95 to  enter
training, which included his  ADSC  statement  indicating  a  two-year
consecutive obligation associated  with  the  training.   He  provided
DPAME with written acknowledgement on 20 Oct 95, attaching his  signed
ADSC statement accepting the fellowship and the ADSC  associated  with
the training.

According to DPAME, Title 10 USC and Department of Defense Instruction
(DODI) 6000.12 and AFR 36-51 and the applicant’s 1986  USUHS  contract
govern his ADSC.  AFR 36-51, dated 23 May 86, was in effect  when  the
applicant signed his USUHS contract.  He indicated the regulations had
changed from AFR to AFI 36-107;  however,  the  change  in  regulatory
guidance had no affect on his ADSC.   The  applicant’s  initial  USUHS
contract would govern any ADSC associated  with  educational  programs
regardless of the time he actually enters training.  The current USUHS
contract is different.  It states, “Current directives in place at the
time of training will determine applicable ADSC.”  For  current  USUHS
students, AFI 36-2107 would determine a selectee’s  ADSC  because  the
contract is silent regarding ADSC associated with  training.   In  the
applicant’s case, the contract is  clear  in  that  a  year  for  year
consecutive  obligation  is  incurred  for  training  in  a   civilian
institution.

DPAME also noted that current and past  regulatory  guidance  is  that
obligation for civilian sponsorship is always served consecutively  to
any pre-existing ADSC.  The applicant incurred no additional ADSC  for
training in a military facility for his  Ophthalmology  training  from
1993-1996 based  on  his  1986  USUHS  contract.   Current  directives
indicate a member completing  the  identical  training  program  today
would incur a three-year ADSC.

According to DPAME, the applicant’s ADSC was calculated correctly, and
written  notification  was  provided   to   him.    He   alleges   his
miscounseling occurred as a result of regulatory  changes.   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.  If he felt that there was a discrepancy  or
conflicting  information,  he   could   have   contacted   DPAME   for
clarification.  The rules in effect at the time  an  individual  signs
his contract  should  be  binding  on  both  the  Air  Force  and  the
individual.  By signing the  contract  and  his  active  duty  service
commitment statements, he indicated that he was fully aware  of  these
rules and of the commitments  that  he  was  making  for  active  duty
service.  Since the applicant signed his ADSC statement  indicating  a
two-year consecutive ADSC, his request has no merit.  In 1995, he knew
of the ADSC until 2005.  He accepted this  date  as  a  condition  for
sponsorship for a fellowship.  He is entitled to apply for MSP at this
time.  The correct calculation would put his ADSC to May 2009,  if  he
were to sign a four-year MSP contract.   This  would  be  a  fair  and
consistent application of the statutes  that  govern  his  ADSCs.   In
DPAME’s view, there was adequate documentation that he  was  correctly
counseled about the ADSC for his fellowship.

A complete copy of  the  AFPC/DPAME  evaluation  and  attachments  are
attached to the AFPC/DPAMF2 memorandum, which is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In his response, the applicant indicated that  he  believes  that  the
complications  surrounding  his  ADSC  contract  are  unique  to   his
particular situation and cannot be generalized.  The entire process of
opening a training slot for his particular subspecialty was  unusually
sudden and  unexpected.   He  had  very  little  time  to  prepare  an
application for the USAF Board,  which  convened  exceptionally  early
that year at the behest of a flag officer.  This left little  time  to
travel for interviews, state licensing processes, application for Drug
Enforcement Agency authorization, planning for a permanent  change  of
station (PCS), and lengthy credential procedures.  In addition, he had
to maintain a 70 hour work week and the rigors of a surgical residency
program.  This was critically important at the time, thus,  he  relied
heavily on the counsel of the staff  and  a  careful  reading  of  the
regulation prior to ever seeing the ADSC statement.  Having spoken  to
several of his colleagues that have undergone similar training, he  is
gratified to learn that the process has become much smoother and  that
young physicians  in  training  are  receiving  careful  and  thorough
counseling before they commit to further training  on  behalf  of  the
USAF.

Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

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.   The  applicant's
complete submission was thoroughly reviewed and his  contentions  were
duly noted.  However, we do not find the applicant’s assertions or the
documentation  submitted  in  support  of  his   appeal   sufficiently
persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force  office
of primary responsibility (OPR).  In our view,  the  language  of  the
ADSC contract that the applicant signed was unambiguous.   It  clearly
indicated that  he  would  incur  a  two-year  consecutive  obligation
associated with his training.  Therefore, in the absence of  clear-cut
evidence that the applicant’s ADSC date was erroneous, we  agree  with
the recommendation of the OPR and adopt their rationale as  the  basis
for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain  his  burden
of establishing that he has suffered either an error or an  injustice.
Accordingly, 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 8 Nov 01, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Jackson A. Hauslein, Jr., Panel Chair
      Mr. John E. B. Smith, Member
      Mr. Thomas J. Topolski, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 16 Jul 01, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPAMF2, dated 5 Sep 01, w/atchs.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 14 Sep 01.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, applicant, undated.




                                   JACKSON A. HAUSLEIN, JR.
                                   Panel Chair