ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-01714
COUNSEL: Victor R. Schwanbeck
HEARING DESIRED: YES
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Multi-Year Special Pay (MSP) contract and the commitment he incurred
be retracted and that he be allowed to pay back the $6000 bonus.
___________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On December 13, 2000, a similar appeal was considered and denied by the
Board. For an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the
applicant’s request and the rationale of the earlier decision by the
Board, see the Record of Proceedings at Exhibit F.
On May 16, 2001, the applicant requested reconsideration of the Board’s
decision contending that his appeal should have received a legal review
since its main premise was a contract dispute. He further contended that
he was persuaded into signing the MSP contract by an untrained (in multi-
year special pay contracts), yet confident, Noncommissioned-Officer-in-
Charge (NCOIC) of the Command Support Staff, who gave him no opportunity
for questioning because he was so sure of the (incorrect) meaning of the
contract. Applicant's complete submission, including a statement from
the new NCOIC of the Command Support Staff explaining that new procedures
are in place for processing special pay contracts, is at Exhibit G.
___________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:
HQ AFPC/DPAMF1 stated that their original recommendation for disapproval
still stands. They indicated that the applicant initiated an agreement
which clearly outlined the commitment associated with accepting the MSP
payments (Exhibit H).
HQ AFPC/JA opined that the requested relief should be granted. They
stated the evidence submitted by applicant proves the Air Force committed
an error when it misadvised him about the time he would have to serve in
the Air Force when executing a contract and recommended the relief be
granted (Exhibit I).
HQ USAF/SG reviewed the applicant’s request for reconsideration and also
recommended granting the applicant relief. In their review they stated
that they supported setting aside the applicant’s Multi-year Special Pay
(MSP) agreement and approving a correction of military records adjusting
his active duty service commitment back to 1 October 2001 (Exhibit K).
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:
The applicant agreed with the advisory opinion from HQ AFPC/JA. He
points out that when both parties do not understand the agreement it is
called a “mutual mistake.” He states that the facts of his case are
unique, and deciding in his favor will not set a precedent (Exhibit J).
The applicant agreed with the additional advisory opinion provided by HQ
USAF/SG and indicated that he understood that if the Board set aside his
MSP contract he would pay back the MSP contract payment he received
(Exhibit L).
___________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
After again reviewing this application, the new evidence provided in
support of the appeal, and the evaluations prepared by AFPC/JA and HQ
USAF/SG, a majority of the Board was persuaded that the applicant was
misadvised that accepting the Multi-Year Special Pay (MSP) contract would
commit him for two years, effective 1 October 1999. When, in fact, his
commitment would not begin until 17 May 2001, the date following his ADSC
for his medical education. Consequently, the applicant relied on the
information that was provided to him by the individual responsible for
counseling him on the meaning and effect of the MSP agreement. In view
of this, a majority of the Board adopts the findings of AFPC/JA and HQ
USAF/SG as the basis for their conclusion that the applicant has been the
victim of an injustice. Therefore, a majority of the Board recommends
that the applicant’s records be corrected as indicated below.
___________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that the Multi-Year Special
Pay (MSP) contract, executed on 7 September 1999, and the associated
Active Duty Service Commitment, be declared null and void and removed
from his records.
___________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered Docket Number 00-01714 in
Executive Session on 8 February 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mrs. Barbara A. Westgate, Chair
Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Member
Ms. Marcia Bachman, Member
By a majority vote, the members voted to correct the records, as
recommended. Mr. Peterson voted to deny the request and did not desire
to submit a minority report. The following additional documentary
evidence was considered:
Exhibit F. Record of Proceedings, dated 15 Mar 2000,
w/Exhibits
Exhibit G. Letter, Applicant, dated 16 May 2001, w/atchs.
Exhibit H. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPAMF1, dated 1 Aug 2001, w/atchs.
Exhibit I. Letter, HQ AFPC/JA, dated 30 Aug 2001.
Exhibit J. Letter, Applicant, dated 6 Sep 2001.
Exhibit K. Letter, HQ USAF/SG, dated 19 Nov 2001.
Exhibit L. Letter, Applicant, dated 28 Nov 2001.
BARBARA A. WESTGATE
Chair
AFBCMR 00-01714
MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF
Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force
Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section
1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that the Multi-Year Special Pay
(MSP) contract, executed on 7 September 1999, and the associated Active
Duty Service Commitment, be, and hereby are, declared null and void and
removed from his records.
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
They further state that the completed agreement clearly states “ADSC under this agreement will be the day following completion of existing ADSC for any medical education and training.” They noted that applicant properly executed the agreement which stated the provisions of the associated active duty obligation and projected staffing in the applicant’s specialty are based on his retainability to 16 May 2003. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we...
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 | 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.
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.
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 | CY2006 | BC-2006-01565
Had he known of this increase, he would have renegotiated his contract at the time of the increase. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that his Multiyear Special Pay (MSP) contract is in error. Applicant’s contention that had he known of the MSP bonus increase, he would have renegotiated his contract at the time of the increase is duly noted.
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,...
He further states being board eligible entitled him to specialty and incentive pays. In his presentation, the applicant claimed he believed he was entitled to receive Special Pay as a flight surgeon and any apparent deceit was merely a result of the confusion that exists Air Force-wide on the subject of Special Pay. Pursuant to an inquiry from the AFBCMR Staff, DFAS-FYCC informally advised that, in addition to the MSP/MISP bonuses, the applicant received the following special...
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. The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. Insufficient relevant evidence...
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...