RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-02448
INDEX NUMBER: 128.06
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: None
XXX-XX-XXXX HEARING DESIRED: Yes
_______________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Applicant requests retroactive payment of Medical Incentive Special Pay
(ISP) for the period 1 Oct 00 through 30 Sep 01.
_______________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
She made a decision not to sign her ISP contract during the normal
timeframe in November 2000 due to information she was given by the NCO
in the Special Actions Section of her Military Personnel Flight (MPF),
the supposed assigned subject matter expert, that the ISP contract
could be “signed at any time.”
She was provided the actual ISP contract, but given no further
information regarding procedural instructions, so she had to rely on
the information given to her by the NCO.
The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.
_______________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant served on active duty as a doctor from 6 Jun 94 to 30 Aug
01, separating in the grade of major.
The remaining 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 at Exhibit C.
_______________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Superintendent, Medical Special Pays Branch, AFPC/DPAMF1, evaluated
this application and recommends denial of the applicant’s request.
Information on Health Profession Special Pays is provided to servicing
MPFs through an MPF memorandum (MPFM) (FY01 program was announced
through MPFM 00-36, 5 Oct 00) and to all Air Force physicians through
their Medical Treatment Facility Commander (HQ AFPC Memorandum, 19 Sep
00). The program announcement and all medical special pay contracts
are posted on the HQ AFPC website.
The MPFM and HQ AFPC Memorandum included the statements “Agreements to
be effective 1 Oct 00 must be received by this office NLT 30 Nov 00.
Agreements signed after 30 Nov 00 will be effective the date they are
signed.”
The applicant contacted AFPC/DPAMF1 to see if she could receive ISP
retroactively to 1 Oct 00. She was advised that ISP agreements are not
backdated unless the individual can show administrative oversight. The
applicant stated to the representative from AFPC/DPAMF1 that at the
time she should have completed her ISP agreement, she was applying to
residency programs and if accepted to a civilian program, had every
intention of separating on her DOS. The applicant’s own statements to
the AFPC/DPAMF1 representative do not demonstrate administrative
oversight.
Additionally, ISP is used by the Air Force as a retention tool and
requires a 12-month commitment from the individual. The applicant’s
DOS is 30 Aug 01 so she did not possess adequate retainability to
receive ISP.
The information concerning the required submission date was clearly
available to the applicant. Additionally, ISP is used as a retention
tool and because the applicant’s stated intent was to separate if
accepted in a civilian residency program, her request for retroactive
payment should be denied.
The complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.
_______________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant responded to the advisory opinion and again reiterated
that the basis of her request is that she was provided wrong
information regarding the time period for signing the ISP contract.
She states that when she received an e-mail from AFPC/DPAMF1 advising
her that the ISP could not be backdated, she immediately contacted the
Special Actions NCO in her MPF to find out what needed to be done. She
states that she was told to ask about a “retro-ISP.” In support of
this contention she provides an e-mail with a handwritten note she
claims was written by the NCO in Special Actions advising her of this.
The applicant’s complete response, with attachment, is 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. We took notice of the
applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case. The
preponderance of evidence appears to indicate that the applicant was
miscounseled by a NCO in the MPF. While this is indeed regrettable,
our review of the totality of circumstances involved in the case does
not convince us that she has been the victim of an error or injustice.
We note that in three of the statements of support provided by her,
reference is made to physicians being referred to the AFPC website for
information on the ISP. The applicant makes no mention of whether she
was aware of or has used this source since it contains complete and
accurate information on the ISP. Further, we note that the statement
from her squadron commander fails to address what actions were taken by
her chain of command to inform physicians on requirements of the ISP as
stipulated in the 19 Sep 00 Memorandum put out by the Medical Services
Officer Management Division at the Air Force Personnel Center. Rather,
he states that “despite the possible procedural errors and regardless
of reasons for why she never received this payment, I am in support of
corrective action for her to be properly paid for the services that she
provided during this time period…” His view seems to contradict the
purpose of the ISP, i.e., as a retention incentive. It appears to the
Board that the applicant’s problems with ISP were caused primarily by
her efforts to remain eligible for ISP as well as maintaining maximum
flexibility to separate before or on her established DOS should the
options she was pursuing come through. In view of the above findings,
we believe that sufficient sources, with correct information regarding
the ISP, were available to the applicant; therefore, 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 6 November 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Panel Chair
Mr. John B. Hennessey, Member
Ms. Carolyn J. Watkins, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 21 Aug 01, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPAMF1, dated 25 Sep 01,
w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 12 Oct 01.
Exhibit E. Memorandum, Applicant, dated 20 Oct 01, w/atch.
PEGGY E. GORDON
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03910
DPAMF1 denied the request stating that overlooking the requirement to submit an ISP contract for more than 6 months (far beyond the submission deadline of 30 Nov 01) is not a valid reason for retroactive payment of medical special pay. As of this date, this office has received no response. _________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD: A majority of the panel finds insufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommends the application be denied.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00657
Agreements received after this date would be effective the date they were signed. While it appears that the applicant may have been given correct information about his eligibility for incentive special pay at the time he contacted the Medical Special Pays Branch, the Board is not convinced that the dissemination of information about the newly implemented Stop-Loss Incentive Special Pay (ISP) program via a web page was sufficient to make the applicant aware of the requirements for him to...
r AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Special Pay Branch, AFPC/DPAMFl, reviewed this application and indicated that the applicant was given the opportunity to renegotiate his Nurse Anesthetist Incentive Special Pay in 1995 due to an increase in the entitlement from $6000.00 to $15,000.00. According to DPAMF1, they received a Nurse Anesthetist Pay Agreement from the applicant with an effective date of 2 Nov 96. renegotiated ISP anniversary date of 31 Oct 94.
Although the applicant met the requirements for practice as a plastic surgeon in the civilian community, he failed to meet the Air Force requirements for plastic surgery certification (i.e., five-years general surgery residency and additional three-year plastic surgery fellowship). Applicant's complete response is attached at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Superintendent, Medical Special Pay Branch,...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03928
He has submitted and has been paid his FY07 Incentive Special Pay by meeting the requirements of the FY07 MSP Plan and Instructions which was provided with his application. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit C). ___________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2006-03928 in Executive Session on 21 February 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Mr. Michael J.
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,...
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Neither her Armed Forces Health Professions Scholarship Program (AFHPSP) contract nor the AFI states that her Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps (AFROTC) ADSC could not be served during an active duty military residency. A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit G. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-01120
While the Fiscal Year 2007 (FY 07) POSP plan only detailed renegotiating agreements to receive higher rates, the Medical Special Pays branch stated he could have renegotiated his POSP contract before 4 July 2007. Consequently, the applicant was eligible and had ample time and opportunity to renegotiate an FY07 POSP agreement upon reaching eligibility for the annual $8000 rate on 4 Jul 07, yet he did not do so. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Jun 09.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02234
Since the applicant’s supervisor at Ramstein AB called her previous supervisor at Lackland AFB to inquire about the level of the decoration, and he was told they did not consider her for an MSM because the multiyear retention bonus was not paid, administrative channels are considered to have been exhausted, and it is appropriate for the case to be considered by the BCMR. Her complete submission is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01813
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-01813 INDEX CODE: 128.05, 112.05 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 11 Dec 06 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) be paid based on the full four years she reenlisted for on 23 Dec 04 and not be reduced by the time remaining on the 23-month extension she was...