FORMAL HEARING

                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  86-04015

            ADVISOR:  COL PAUL ARCARI, USAF, RET.

            HEARING DESIRED: YES

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His previous request for four years of constructive service  credit
(CSC)  for  longevity  pay  purposes  for  his  attendance  at  the
Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences  (USUHS)  from
August 1983 through May 1987 be reconsidered and approved.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was miscounseled regarding his eligibility for CSC prior to  his
matriculation in the USUHS Class of 1987.

He states, in part, that  the  AFBCMR  favorably  reconsidered  the
cases of five 1983 USAFA graduate members of  the  USUHS  Class  of
1987 awarding CSC for four years of medical training.  These  cases
were considered on the basis of (1) counseling by USAFA pre-medical
advisors (Captain W (now Lieutenant Colonel W)  and  Lt  Colonel  C
(now Colonel C) regarding CSC and (2) reliance on CSC counseling in
foregoing other Air Force career opportunities.  He has  stated  in
previous submissions that he relied on incorrect  information  from
USAFA pre-medical advisors and the USUHS to make irrevocable career
decisions.  Attached is new data from one of his USAFA  pre-medical
advisors, Colonel C (Atch 1).

In particular, he received the same CSC information that the  USAFA
83/USUHS 87 group received, a group that the AFBCMR has  previously
awarded CSC credit to.  Additionally,  he  received  the  same  CSC
information from Dr. C that Dr. V, USAFA 82/USUHS 89 received,  who
was also  awarded  CSC  with  a  three-year  field  tour  prior  to
matriculation at USUHS.  Further, Dr. C states, as  he  (applicant)
has in the  past,  that  "…Dr.  N  had  to  give  up  opportunities
elsewhere in the Air Force like Undergraduate Pilot Training  (UPT)
to be recommended by our program."  In addition, Dr. W,  his  other
pre-medical advisor, has stated that:

      …Major N  was  advised  of  the  benefits  of  a  USUHS  education,
      including four years of constructive credit.   Further  I  consider
      this ‘irrefutable’ evidence of counseling for all  cadets  at  that
      time including Major N. (Atch 2)

USUHS admissions and interview staff affirmed  his  previous  USAFA
counseling.  The USUHS General Counsel has recently forwarded "…the
official position of the University…" (Atch 3) to the  DOD  General
Counsel regarding USUHS counseling  of  applicants.   Contained  in
this position the University concedes that the USUHS  bulletin  and
staff had incorrectly informed applicants that they would get  pre-
DOPMA benefits.  The USUHS information  reaffirmed  the  USAFA  CSC
counseling that he received from his pre-medical advisors.

In addition, the USUHS bulletin for the 1983-1984  admission  cycle
stated that "Longevity credit for pay purposes accrues for students
for time spent in school…" (Atch 4).  This evidence  of  counseling
at both USAFA and USUHS further establishes his understanding  that
he would receive  CSC  upon  graduation.   And  as  he  has  stated
previously, the  knowledge  that  he  would  receive  CSC  was  not
dismissed by him in rejecting other Air Force career opportunities.

While he believes his case most  closely  resembles  the  USAFA  83
group, he would also like to submit new  and  relevant  information
regarding a newly adopted DOD position on the USUHS 1987 Class.  In
early 1999, the  Under  Secretary  of  Defense  for  Personnel  and
Readiness advised the respective service  BCMRs  that  "…applicants
who are able  to  make  a  significant  showing  under  a  standard
approach will receive the same relief regardless of the applicant's
branch of service." (Emphasis added) (Atch 5)

The "standard approach" adopted by the Army BCMR was  identical  to
the AFBCMR, namely, demonstration of CSC counseling and reliance on
counseling to forego other career opportunities.  On 23 Sep 99, the
Army BCMR reconsidered 14 cases of 1983 USUHS  students  (Class  of
1987).  The 13 successful BCMR requests were Service Academy (USMA)
graduates who were  advised  by  West  Point  pre-medical  advisors
regarding pre-DOPMA CSC.  As with the AFBCMR  and  consistent  with
the guidance from the Under Secretary  of  Defense,  Personnel  and
Readiness, the Army BCMR reasoned that it would be unjust  to  deny
CSC to similarly situated USMA cadets.  Among these cadets was  one
doctor, who like himself was a 1980 Service Academy (USMA) graduate
who also graduated from USUHS in 1987.  A copy of the cited case is
enclosed as Atch 6.  As noted  in  the  package,  this  doctor  was
counseled while at USMA regarding CSC, made career decisions  based
on that counseling, graduated in 1980 and entered  USUHS  in  1983.
He subsequently graduated from USUHS in 1987.  As he is also a 1980
Service Academy (USAFA) graduate and  a  USUHS  1987  graduate,  he
requests the same relief as his colleague, particularly in view  of
the guidance of the  Under  Secretary  of  Defense,  Personnel  and
Readiness.

In support of his application, applicant provides a 9 November 2001
letter submitted to the AFBCMR from Colonel C (retired),  a  former
Chairman of the Health Professions Advisory Committee (HPAC) at the
Air Force Academy.  He also provides a  29  September  1998  letter
from the USUHS General Counsel to the Office of  the  Secretary  of
Defense (OSD) that urged OSD's support for  CSC  for  the  affected
members of USUHS Class of 1987.  Finally, he provides  a  13  April
1999 memorandum from the Under Secretary of Defense  for  Personnel
and Readiness to the service secretaries which recommended that the
various service BCMRs adopt "uniform guidelines for the  evaluation
and disposition" of the pending applications for CSC from the USUHS
Class of 1987 (Exhibit AAA with Attachments 1 through 6).
___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant,  a  lieutenant  colonel,  has  a  Total  Active  Federal
Commissioned Date of 5 March 1984 and a Total Federal  Commissioned
Service Date of 28 May 1980.

The Defense Officer Personnel Management Act (DOPMA) was enacted on
12 December 1980 and implemented by the Air Force on  15  September
1981.  DOPMA repealed that portion of the law that  had  authorized
four years of constructive service credit  to  medical  and  dental
corps officers for computation of basic pay and  retired  pay,  and
had authorized an additional credit of one year to  those  officers
for internship received while not on active duty.

DOPMA preserved credit for persons who on  14 September  1981  were
enrolled in the  USUHS  or  the  Armed  Forces  Health  Professions
Scholarship Program.   Individuals  who  entered  either  of  these
programs after 14 September 1981 were not eligible for constructive
service credit for basic pay.

Applicant graduated from the United States  Air  Force  Academy  on
28 May 1980 and entered  on  extended  active  duty  (EAD)  in  the
Regular Air Force as a second lieutenant the same date.

On 28 March 1983, the applicant signed  a  USUHS  Military  Service
Obligation Contract, which indicated, among other things,  that  he
understood that service performed while a member of the program  is
not counted in computing years of service creditable for basic pay.
 Applicant resigned his Regular Air Force appointment and  was  re-
appointed into the Reserve of the Air Force as a second  lieutenant
on 9 August 1983.  He thereafter matriculated  into  USUHS  in  the
Fall of 1983 and graduated in 1987.  Since he graduated from  USUHS
after 14 September 1981, he was not eligible for the four years  of
constructive service credit for basic pay.

In response to  the  applicant's  request,  the  AFBCMR,  in  1987,
determined that the applicant had  provided  insufficient  relevant
evidence to demonstrate  the  existence  of  a  probable  error  or
injustice and denied his request.  The applicant subsequently  made
a number of requests for reconsideration of  the  Board's  decision
(in 1992, and twice in  1997)  which  resulted  in  a  reconsidered
decision by the Board in 1998.   That  decision  again  denied  the
applicant's request citing insufficient relevant evidence of  error
or injustice.

The detailed facts and history of the applicant's case are included
as Exhibit BBB with Exhibits AA through HH.
___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/JA states, in part, that in 1997, they opined that no basis
existed to justify the Board's  favorable  reconsideration  of  the
applicant's  request.   After  reviewing  the  applicant's  instant
request and the supporting "new  and  relevant  information,"  they
find nothing that changes their opinion.

In their view, the information provided in the applicant's  request
is not newly discovered  relevant  evidence,  nor  does  it  reveal
information  to  the  Board  that  was  not  available   when   the
application was previously considered.  The basic  premise  of  the
applicant's current argument is again that since another  similarly
placed individual received relief, the  applicant  should  also  be
granted  the  same  relief.   Although  predicated   on   a   "new"
12 September 2000 decision from the Army BCMR related  to  an  Army
classmate, the applicant's argument is the same argument considered
and rejected by the Board in its 1998 decision.

In 1998, the Board stated that even though the applicant's case was
identical to the case of a fellow officer that received relief from
a different panel, such relief was based on equitable concerns  and
was granted in error.  In its conclusion, the Board stated  "we  do
not believe that the interest of equity or justice requires  us  to
continue to perpetuate an erroneous action."  Further, in referring
to USUHS Class of 1987 graduates in general, the Board  noted  that
"the plain and unambiguous language of the applicable law leaves no
doubt  that,  for  whatever  reason,  the  Congress  intended  that
effective  September  15,  1981,  these  graduates  of  government-
sponsored  medical  training  would  no  longer  be   entitled   to
constructive service for computation of basic pay.   Therefore,  we
continue to believe that any relief on the basis  of  institutional
inequity should be addressed to the  Congress  in  the  form  of  a
request for an amendment to the statute."

Similarly,  the  applicant  has  recast  his  previously   rejected
argument regarding his "miscounseling"  by  former  HPAC  Chairmen,
Colonel C and Lt Col W.

In support, the applicant asserts that five  1983  U.S.  Air  Force
Academy (USAFA) graduates who subsequently graduated from the USUHS
1987 Class were granted relief by the AFBCMR based on the erroneous
counseling by Colonel C and Lt Col W.  As it regards Colonel C, the
Board has previously  concluded  that  there  was  "no  showing  of
misinformation by the former  HPAC  chairman  (Colonel  C)  to  the
applicant."  The Board  also  indicated  that  this  conclusion  is
supported by strong evidence that the applicant never relied to his
detriment on Colonel C's putative  misinformation.   In  our  view,
Colonel C's current letter does  nothing  to  disturb  the  Board's
previous conclusion.

Likewise the 5 September 1997 letter from Lt  Col  W  is  also  not
"newly discovered evidence."  Similar information from Lt Col W was
provided and considered in the applicant's  1997  application.   Lt
Col W was the HPAC Chairman while the applicant was a cadet at  the
USAFA and therefore the applicant knew  this  information  when  he
made his initial application in 1985 but the board did not hear  of
this information until the applicant's second and third application
in 1997 and 2001, some 12 to 16 years later.

Nonetheless, while Lt Col W specifically recalls meeting  with  and
advising  the  applicant  about  his  entitlement  to   CSC,   this
advisement purportedly took place in 1978.  Lt Col W's letter  also
specifies that the counseling he gave to the applicant (and  others
during  his  tenure  as  HPAC  Chairman)  "was  absolutely  correct
according to the law at the time."  There is no indication that  Lt
Col W advised the applicant after his graduation from the USAFA  in
1980.   That  the  applicant  was  correctly  advised  as  a  USAFA
undergraduate that he  was  entitled  to  CSC  upon  completion  of
medical school at the USUHS is not persuasive.  Although he applied
for admission to the USUHS immediately  following  graduation  from
the USAFA, the applicant was not accepted and was assigned to  duty
in the line.  The applicant did not enter medical school  at  USUHS
until 1983, some five years  after  being  advised  by  Lt  Col  W.
Accordingly, because the counseling provided to the applicant by Lt
Col W was correct and accurate at the time it was given, it was not
erroneous and cannot, therefore, serve as a basis  for  the  relief
requested.

Colonel C's current letter also seeks to remind the Board that  "as
I stated in my first letter (15 August 1997) Dr. N had to  give  up
opportunities elsewhere in the Air Force like  Undergraduate  Pilot
Training to be recommended by our  (health  professions)  program."
This again is not new evidence or argument and is information  that
was known at the time  of  the  applicant's  original  application.
Additionally, the applicant raised this issue in his  last  request
for reconsideration and to assert it now as a new basis for  relief
is disingenuous.

Notwithstanding Colonel C's statement, there is simply no  evidence
anywhere in the entire history of the applicant's numerous requests
for relief that would indicate that he made a  decision  to  forego
undergraduate pilot training (UPT) based on the conclusion that  he
would be entitled to CSC while attending the USUHS.  In  fact,  all
evidence indicates that the applicant's personal  career  objective
was to become a physician.

As indicated in  Lt  Col  W's  letter,  the  applicant  sought  and
received counseling in his third year as a USAFA  cadet  to  attend
medical school upon graduation.  The applicant applied to USUHS  in
the fall of 1979, but failed to gain  admission.   Lt  Col  W  also
commented that "since his (the applicant's) desire was to become  a
doctor, he waived an opportunity to go to pilot training and he was
assigned to a space systems program…."  The  applicant  applied  to
and was accepted for admission to medical school in Kansas in 1981,
but declined to matriculate because he  could  not  obtain  an  Air
Force scholarship.   The  applicant  turned  down  admission  to  a
graduate nuclear physics program offered by the Air Force Institute
of Technology in 1982, ostensibly because  he  intended  to  go  to
medical school.  The applicant later applied for admission and  was
accepted  for  medical  school  at   Georgetown   University,   the
University of  Virginia,  and  USUHS  in  1983.   Finally,  in  the
applicant's original  application,  he  made  no  mention  that  he
declined UPT in order to attend USUHS.  Therefore, it  seems  clear
that the applicant's intent from at least his third cadet  year  at
the USAFA was to become a physician.  His consequent  decisions  to
forego "an opportunity" to attend UPT  and  a  graduate  degree  in
nuclear physics was based on his personal career goals and  not  on
whether he would be entitled to CSC while attending USUHS.

Lastly, the applicant cites letters from the USUHS General  Counsel
and the Under Secretary of Defense,  Personnel  and  Readiness,  as
persuasive evidence which requires the relief he seeks.  The  USUHS
General Counsel's letter, while  not  specifically  addressing  the
applicant's circumstance, recommends CSC for  all  members  of  the
USUHS Class of 1987 based on equity  concerns  and  notwithstanding
DOPMA legislation which clearly prohibits CSC for this class.   The
General  Counsel's  letter  is  neither  persuasive  nor   binding.
Additionally, while well intended, they believe the General Counsel
is wrong as a matter of law.

The applicant also quotes the Under Secretary of Defense, Personnel
and Readiness, out of context when he states that Mr. D advised the
respective  BCMRs  that  "applicants  who  are  able  to   make   a
significant showing under a standard approach will receive the same
relief regardless of  the  applicant's  branch  of  service."   The
entire text from which that quote is taken, puts Mr. D's  objective
more clearly.

It is clear that the Under Secretary is not and may not mandate the
action of the various BCMRs and also recognizes that each case must
be considered and decided based on its own facts and merits.  There
is  no  indication  that  uniform  standards  were  established  in
accordance with this memorandum.

In conclusion, HQ AFPC/JA  states  that  the  bottom  line  in  the
applicant's case is  that  he  desired  to  attend  medical  school
following graduation from the USAFA and actively sought  the  means
to achieve this at government expense.  In light  of  the  enormous
benefit that he has received at  taxpayer  expense  and  under  the
generous conditions in which he has achieved them,  his  claims  of
miscounseling, declining other career  paths,  and  inequity,  ring
hollow.  The applicant made a decision to attend USUHS  but  cannot
demonstrate how attending USUHS over any other medical  school  has
harmed him or his military or professional career.  A complete copy
of the HQ AFPC/JA advisory opinion is included as Exhibit CCC.
___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant takes exception to the advisory opinion's conclusion that
the information provided is not new.  Specifically, he states  that
since the Board considered his last request for reconsideration  on
24 August 1998 and the Army did not consider Dr. St P's case  until
on or about 12 September 2000, the 1998 Board  could  not  possibly
have known about the findings of the 2000  Army  BCMR.   Similarly,
the 1998 Board could not have known  about  Col  C's  letter  dated
9 November 2001 nor the Under Secretary of Defense's letter,  dated
13 April 1999.  While it is  possible  that  the  compelling  USUHS
General Counsel letter, dated 29  September  1998,  may  have  been
known to the 1998 Board panel considering his case, no mention  was
made of this  letter  in  their  findings.  Further,  the  advisory
opinion notes that "The basic premise of  the  applicant's  current
argument is again that since another  similarly  placed  individual
received relief, the applicant should also be granted relief."   He
believes  this  statement  strengthens  his  case  because,  as  he
understands it, the purpose of the BCMR process  is  equal  justice
for similarly situated personnel.  A purpose  that  previously  led
panels at the Army  Board  to  award  credit  to  roughly  22  1987
USUHS/USMA year  group  peers  in  the  Army  consistent  with  the
AFBCMR's award of credit to 5 1987 USUHS/USAFA peers.

Applicant further states that the advisory opinion asserts that the
AFBCMR was wrong in awarding credit to a similarly  situated  USAFA
colleague.  By extension, since the Army  BCMR  used  the  AFBCMR’s
previous actions as the basis for relief in their cases, one  might
conclude based on this view that the Army BCMR was also wrong.   He
disagrees.  After the AFBCMR took the lead in  granting  relief  to
the USUHS Class of 1986, the BCMRs  established  the  precedent  of
acting in concert.  As with the most recent action of the Army BCMR
in recognizing similarly situated USMA/USUHS graduates, the  AFBCMR
would be acting consistent with  their  previous  actions  and  the
actions of their sister board in awarding credit in his case.   The
advisory  opinion   also   inexplicably   quotes   the   applicable
legislative intent and law, but this is not a revelation.  The same
intent and law applied to the previous officers granted  relief  by
the Air Force and Army BCMRs.

The essence of the advisory opinion discussion is twofold:  one, Lt
Col W's  advisement  is  largely  irrelevant  because  it  preceded
matriculation by several years; and two, Col C's advisement is  not
compelling.  On both accounts the advisory opinion fails to include
several important points.  There is no dispute that Lt  Col  W  was
correct in informing  him  that  he  would  receive  pre-DOPMA  CSC
credits prior to the change in the law.  What the opinion fails  to
note, however, is that Lt  Col  W's  immediate  successor,  Col  C,
continued to advise applicants of the CSC despite the change in the
law.  This fact has been a significant source of  consternation  to
AFPC and the Board.

Previously, the Board  accorded  considerable  weight  to  Col  C's
advisement.  He respectfully requests that the panel  pay  specific
attention to the entirety of Col C's comments on his behalf in  the
9 November 2001 and 15 August 1997 letters as  they  demonstrate  a
continuum of advisement about CSC as it pertains to his  case.   As
much as Col C's comments may be discomforting to AFPC,  they  still
represent the most true and accurate  personal  reflection  of  his
primary source of information regarding CSC.   Further,  the  USUHS
General  Counsel  letter  reveals  that  "The  information…obtained
during the  admissions  process  incorrectly  led  interviewees  to
conclude that they would get pre-DOPMA  benefits."   Simply,  there
was nothing during the admissions process that would have persuaded
him that Col C's advisement was not correct.

AFPC contends that he never  entertained  other  Air  Force  career
opportunities like UPT because he was  committed  to  a  career  in
medicine.  This obfuscates the issue; namely, had he known that  he
would be  at  a  significant  pay  and  promotion  disadvantage  by
attending sponsored medical training he would  have  given  greater
weight to another career path.  Notwithstanding the AFPC  assertion
about his intentions, it ignored the fact  that  he  completed  UPT
preparation training, Pilot Indoctrination Training, and  kept  his
Flying Class I UPT physical  examination  current;  both  of  which
would be out of character for someone  who  had  no  intentions  of
going to UPT.  That said, he is proud to  be  a  physician  and  is
pleased to serve our airmen as a Senior Flight Surgeon.

The advisory  opinion  contends  that  the  Secretary  of  Defense,
Personnel and Readiness, apparently  really  didn't  mean  what  he
said.  He disagrees.  It seems pretty clear that the Secretary  was
interested in consistency between the Boards.  He similarly  didn't
intend an individual's branch of service to be a limiting factor in
granting relief.  History seems to support his view.  At  the  time
the Secretary signed the letter, legislation was being  entertained
in the Senate and House to clarify the  CSC  status  of  the  USUHS
Class of 1987 and address sporadic BCMR  action.   His  letter,  in
close proximity to the legislative effort, was necessary, in  part,
to address constituency allegations of inconsistencies between  the
BCMRs.  Applicant's complete letter is included as Exhibit DDD.
___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S APPEARANCE AT FORMAL HEARING:

1.  The applicant appeared before the  Board  without  counsel  and
testified  under  oath.    Retired   Colonel   A,   former   Chief,
Entitlements Division, Directorate of  Personnel  Plans,  HQ  USAF,
appeared as his advisor.  Applicant testified  that  the  essential
elements of his case center on three core  questions  and  asserted
that, based on Air Force BCMR precedent, affirmation on these three
questions is a necessary element in granting the relief  he  seeks.
The questions are as follows:  (1) Was he counseled that  he  would
receive constructive service credit (CSC) for time spent in medical
training at the Uniformed Services University  of  Health  Sciences
(USUHS)?  (2) As a result of this counseling, did he exclude  other
USAF career opportunities?  (3) Has sufficient BCMR  precedent,  to
include sister service BCMR action, been established to grant CSC?

2.  In response to question (1) (i.e., Was  he  counseled  that  he
would receive CSC for time spent in medical  training  at  USUHS?),
applicant testified:

    a.  The most significant sources of his  premedical  counseling
were two USAF Academy Health Professions Advisory Committee  (HPAC)
officers.  Both Lieutenant Colonel W and Colonel C  were  the  HPAC
chairmen  at  the  United  States  Air  Force  Academy  (USAFA)  in
succession roughly between 1978 through  1985.  Both  letters  from
Lieutenant Colonel W state that he was counseled by  him  regarding
CSC and was advised of the benefits of a USUHS education, including
four years of CSC.

    b.  Colonel C, Lieutenant Colonel W's  immediate  successor  as
the HPAC chairman, also states in Exhibit AAA, Atch 1:

          Let me be clear.  As I stated  in  my  last  letter,  the  HPAC
          briefing book contained the most recent and  accurate  data  on
          USUHS to include pay and allowances, commitment, et cetera,  as
          provided by the University and USAFA military personnel office.
           Using the information contained in the book, Dr. N,  like  his
          1980, 81, 82 and 83 colleagues, was instructed by  this  office
          that upon USUHS graduation, he would be on par with his  fellow
          USAFA graduates and receive four years' credit for his time  in
          medical school.

    c.  Colonel C has repeatedly stated  he  advised  him  that  he
would receive CSC for time at USUHS.  And, while  these  statements
are disconcerting to the Air Force Personnel  Center  (AFPC),  they
still represent -- as he stated in Exhibit DDD -- the most accurate
reflection of his  primary  source  of  information  regarding  the
benefits of medical training.

    d.  Applicant  further   testified   he   believes   that   CSC
miscounseling by Colonel C has been  used  by  previous  panels  as
crucial evidence in granting  relief.   Furthermore,  as  the  HPAC
chairman, he was the major source of information for him during the
application process.  But, as with his other USAFA colleagues,  the
same colleagues that have been granted CSC by panels such  as  this
one,  the  USUHS  staff  were  also  a  very  important  source  of
information.

    e.  His interaction  with  USUHS  authorities  did  nothing  to
clarify the impact of the change in  law  on  CSC.   This  lack  of
clarity by USUHS personnel has not gone unnoticed  by  OSD  General
Counsel and members of Congress.

    f.  In support of this contention, he read from an e-mail  from
Mr. C, OSD General  Counsel,  addressed  to  Mr.  M,  former  USUHS
General Counsel, dated 16 September 98.  It was during  this  time,
the Fall of 1998, that three Congressmen, Mr. S, Mr. C, and Mr.  S,
had cosponsored House Resolution 2567, titled "A bill to ensure the
equitable  treatment  of  graduates  of  the   Uniformed   Services
University of the Health Sciences Class of 1987."

    g.  The following e-mail communication between Mr. C and Mr.  M
addresses the circumstances surrounding  the  proposed  legislation
and states, in part:

          Charlie (this is Mr. C speaking), last week I went with  Deputy
          Under Secretary F to meet  with  the  House  National  Security
          Committee  staff  and  some  others  regarding  the  issue   of
          constructive service credit for the USUHS  Class  of  87.   Two
          members attended the meeting.  We got  creamed  on  one  issue.
          The Hill people say this is a case of mismanagement  by  USUHS,
          which created the problem.  They  say  USUHS  miscounseled  the
          students.   USUHS  officials  failed  to  assure  that  correct
          information was given.

    h.  It is not surprising then that during  his  interviews  for
the USUHS Class of 1986 and the USUHS Class of 1987 that his  USAFA
counseling regarding CSC was affirmed.

    i.  Also included in Exhibit AAA, Atch 3, is a letter from  the
USUHS General Counsel to OSD General Counsel addressing  the  issue
of CSC as presented during this USUHS interview process.

    j.  Mr. M states:

          Regarding miscounseling of the USUHS Class of 1987, it  appears
          that the information available in the public domain as well  as
          the admissions  interview  information  with  regard  to  DOPMA
          credits were not correct.  The  information  contained  in  the
          USUHS bulletin and obtained  during  the  admissions  interview
          incorrectly led interviewees to conclude that  they  would  get
          pre-DOPMA  benefits.    Their   own   interviewers   used   the
          information  contained  in  the  bulletin  as  the  basis   for
          counseling applicants.


          Furthermore, during this era, there was no clear  understanding
          of the ramifications of the DOPMA legislation.  Even the  BCMRs
          have indirectly  affirmed  this  by  awarding  CSC  to  Academy
          students, who even with the counseling of  military  premedical
          advisors and USUHS admissions personnel, were not clear on  the
          impact of the change in the law.

    k.  Applicant stated that the bottom line is that he heard  CSC
at the USAFA and at  USUHS.   Both  being  reasonable  and  primary
sources, whom else should he believe?

    l.  In  reviewing  previous  Air  Force  BCMR  actions,  it  is
apparent that regarding  the  matter  of  weighing  the  import  of
advisement at USAFA versus  the  import  of  advisement  at  USUHS,
previous panels and "even the Air Force  BCMR  executive  director”
(sic) have appeared to give the greater weight to USAFA counseling.

    m.  In  support,  he  offers  two   examples.    One,   written
communication from the AFPC Actions  Branch  to  the  AFBCMR  dated
11 February 1993; and two, panel discussions with regard  to  USAFA
1984 and USAFA 1985 graduates.  At the bottom of  the  AFPC  letter
that he cited is a typed memorandum for the  record  drafted  by  a
clerk named R at AFPC which reads:

          Mr. B from BCMR called 1 February 93 to ask that we change  our
          recommendation to approve Captain C as he is like P in that  he
          entered HPSP in 1982 but did not graduate until 87.  Mr. B also
          asked if we had any Academy grads  like  B  that  we  recommend
          approval.


          I went through my BCMR database and came up with  nine  Academy
          grads, contacted Mr. B on 2 February 93 and he  asked  that  we
          change our recommendation to approval and send him a list.   If
          he finds any others, he will call us.


          9 February, Mr. B called and asked that we add  to  the  letter
          the individuals are USAFA graduates.  He also asked that we add
          five more names to the letter.

    n.  This memo specifically mentions Captain B.  Dr. B's case is
relevant because it represents the index counseling case at  USAFA.
One key point here is that the AFBCMR executive director wanted  to
ensure that the AFPC memo demonstrated that  the  individuals  were
USAFA graduates, ostensibly linking them to counseling by Colonel C
and other members at the USAFA.

    o.  Another key point, this  memo  also  demonstrates  a  clear
commitment on the part of the executive director to ensure that CSC
is granted to  those  USAFA  graduates  who  were  advised  by  the
leadership at the Academy, including Colonel C.

3.  Turning to question  number  2  (i.e.,  As  a  result  of  this
counseling, did he exclude other USAF career  opportunities?),  the
applicant states:

    a.  The central issue embodied in this question  is  could  the
absence of correct information regarding CSC after  the  change  in
law materially affect his choice as to career path?  If the  answer
is yes, then he believes the question is affirmed.

    b.  He has stated previously that parallel career  paths,  such
as UPT and AFIT Nuclear Engineering Training, were  discounted  and
eventually   rejected   by   him    because    of    miscounseling.
Fundamentally, had he been correctly advised of the change  in  the
law, these options would have been more attractive.

    c.  UPT was an appealing parallel option as his  father  was  a
USAF fighter pilot and he enjoyed flying.  As he has noted  in  the
proceedings, he had taken steps to ensure that the opportunity  for
UPT was still viable.  For example, his flying class I physical was
up-to-date and he took Airmanship 441, which is  an  indoctrination
flight-training course offered to  those  cadets  who  place  their
names in the selection pool for UPT.  However, in fairness, he  did
withdraw his name from consideration for UPT based on the  relative
attractiveness of other careers; medicine of which  is  one.   More
importantly, though, he  received  a  secondary  Air  Force  career
opportunity after the change in law.  As he has  stated  previously
in Exhibit AAA, Tab  6,  he  was  offered  sponsorship  in  Nuclear
Engineering Training through AFIT in 1982.

    d.  As one of  his  undergraduate  majors  was  in  engineering
physics, advanced training in nuclear systems  was  one  potential,
natural evolution of his physics background and one that would have
been of clear benefit to the USAF today, particularly in  light  of
the modern era dirty bomb threat.  Had he known that he would be at
a  career  disadvantage   in   choosing   medicine   over   nuclear
engineering, his eventual career path would  have  been  materially
affected.

    e.  The answer to this second  question  is,  as  a  result  of
counseling,  he  rejected   less   favorable   Air   Force   career
opportunities.

4.  Responding  to  question  three  (i.e.,  Has  sufficient   BCMR
precedent, to include sister service BCMR action, been  established
to grant CSC?), applicant states:

    a.  Precedent has been established by the  AFBCMR  in  awarding
CSC to those officers who go directly from USAFA to medical  school
and those officers who have a field tour  between  USAFA  and  then
enter medical school.  In addition to this precedent established by
previous Boards, there is precedent for AFBCMR and the ABCMR acting
in concert regarding CSC of the USUHS Class of 1986 and  the  Class
of 1987.

    b.  The then ASD for Manpower, the  Honorable  C,  noted  in  a
letter to the representative assistant secretaries that in view  of
the multi-service  nature  of  this  problem,  their  staff  should
explore a resolution of the matter  that  is  consistent  with  the
Department of Defense.  Acting in concert,  the  ABCMR  and  AFBCMR
granted CSC to similarly-situated members of the entire USUHS Class
of 1986.

    c.  To date, the Air Force BCMR has granted CSC to  five  USUHS
Class of 1987 graduates, like himself, an 87 graduate.   Similarly,
the ABCMR has granted CSC to 22  USUHS  Class  of  1987  graduates.
Among them is Dr. St. P, his military  Academy  peer,  in  that  he
graduated from the US Military Academy in 1980  and  as  his  USUHS
1987 classmate, whose case he has included in Exhibit AAA, Atch  6.
As  they  are  identical  in   advisement   and   service   academy
commissioning source with entry on active  duty  at  precisely  the
same time, it would be an egregious miscarriage of justice to award
him CSC and not consider a similar finding in his case.

    d.  In addition, as has been noted, precedent  was  established
by the Army and the Air Force BCMRs in awarding CSC to Army and Air
Force graduates of the Class of 1986.  Approving his request  would
be consistent  with  the  established  precedent  of  inter-service
equity and justice.

    e.  Further, acting in concert  with  the  ABCMR  in  his  case
reflects the more recent intent of DOD.   Specifically,  the  Under
Secretary of Defense for Manpower and Personnel, Mr. D, who stated,
"Applicants who are able to make  a  significant  showing  under  a
standard approach will receive the same relief  regardless  of  the
applicants' branch of service."

Applicant's complete sworn  testimony  and  his  responses  to  the
Board’s questions are contained in the  Transcript  of  Proceedings
(Exhibit EEE).
___________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION:

In response to the Board’s request for clarification concerning the
counseling he provided to the applicant and his statement that  the
applicant had to give up  opportunities  elsewhere  [to  apply  for
medical school] on 30 July 2002, Colonel C states,  in  part,  that
while he  cannot  remember  the  exact  time,  he  did  review  the
advantages of a USUHS education  with  applicant  to  include  four
years’  credit  for  time  spent  in  training.    Concerning   the
opportunities the applicant had to give up  to  apply  for  medical
school, Colonel C states  in  the  early  fall  (roughly  September
through October), the applicant had to make a decision to enter  or
withdraw from the computerized drawing for UPT base of  assignment.
The HPAC selection process began in December - January of the  same
year.  So, a declaration of intent to apply for medical school  and
HPAC sponsorship, by necessity, would mean withdrawal from the  UPT
lottery since these dates precluded students from competing in both
categories simultaneously (Attachment FFF).

In another letter, dated 21  October  2002,  Lieutenant  Colonel  W
states, in part, he believes he needs to clarify the timing of  the
selection process for first class cadets  who  were  interested  in
attending medical school.  Applicant was pilot qualified  and  took
Airmanship 441, Pilot Indoctrination Training, in the summer before
his senior year.  As he remembers, the UPT lottery occurred roughly
in October of his senior year.  If applicant  had  competed  for  a
slot for pilot training, he could not compete  for  medical  school
sponsorship.  He did not participate in the UPT lottery and instead
competed for HPAC selection a few weeks later (Exhibit GGG).
___________________________________________________________________


THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided  by  existing
law or regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  After carefully assessing the applicant's sworn testimony,  his
responses to our questions, the evidence of record  and  additional
evidence  submitted,  the  majority  of  the   panel   finds   that
insufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate
the existence of  a  probable  error  or  an  injustice  warranting
favorable action on the applicant's request.  The minority  members
of the panel, on the other hand, believe the additional  statements
are much stronger than those presented in previously granted  cases
and make an even stronger case for granting based  on  consistency.
The majority disagrees.

4.  Applicant contends, in essence, that  he  was  miscounseled  by
Colonel C (the former HPAC chairman at the  USAFA)  that  he  would
receive CSC for time spent in medical training at USUHS; that as  a
result  of  this  counseling,  he  excluded   other   USAF   career
opportunities; and that there  is  sufficient  BCMR  precedent,  to
include sister service BCMR action, to grant his request  for  four
years of CSC for basic pay and retirement.   The  majority  of  the
Board panel disagrees.

5.  In arriving at our decision, the majority notes that:

    a.  The Defense Officer Personnel Management  Act  (DOPMA)  was
effective on 15 September 1981.  DOPMA repealed the  law  that  had
authorized four years of constructive service credit to medical and
dental officers for computation of basic and retired pay.  However,
DOPMA preserved this credit for those officers that  were  enrolled
in the USUHS or the AFHPSP on 14 September 1981.

    b.  The applicant graduated from the USAFA on 28 May 1980  and,
because he was not selected for medical school, entered  on  active
duty in the Regular Air Force as a second lieutenant the same date.
He was subsequently selected to attend USUHS  and  signed  a  USUHS
Military Service  Obligation  Contract  on  28  March  1983.   This
contract indicated, among other things,  that  he  understood  that
service performed while a member of the program is not  counted  in
computing years of service creditable for basic pay.

    c.  The applicant resigned his Regular appointment and was  re-
appointed into the Reserve of the Air Force as a second  lieutenant
on 9 August 1983.  He thereafter matriculated  into  USUHS  in  the
Fall of 1983 and graduated in 1987.  Since  he  enrolled  into  the
USUHS after 14 September 1981, he was not  eligible  for  the  four
years of constructive service credit for basic and retired pay upon
graduation.

6.  Responding to applicant's  question  number  1  (i.e.,  Was  he
counseled that he would receive  CSC  for  time  spent  in  medical
training at USUHS?), the majority of the panel observes that:

      a.  There is no dispute the applicant was properly  counseled
he would receive the CSC at issue for attending USUHS by Lt Colonel
W, the HPAC Chairman at the USAFA from  June  1977  to  July  1980,
while he was a cadet at the USAFA.  There is also no dispute had he
been able to enroll in USUHS on or before  14  September  1981,  he
would have been entitled to the four years of CSC  he  seeks.   The
fact remains, however, he was not selected for USUHS  in  1980  and
had to accept an assignment in the line of the Air Force to satisfy
his USAFA ADSC.


      b.  The pivotal issue in this case,  therefore,  is,  did  Lt
Colonel W's successor, Colonel C, continue to advise the  applicant
of the benefits of the USUHS  program  to  include  service  credit
after he departed  the  USAFA?   Applicant  asserts  that  he  did.
Nonetheless, as noted by AFPC/JA in an earlier advisory opinion,  a
close reading of Colonel C's prior  letters  of  support  shows  he
never claims unequivocally to have briefed the  applicant  that  he
was entitled to the four years of CSC at issue.  What  the  letters
establish  is  that  Colonel  C  continued  to  have  contact  with
applicant during his line-of-the-Air Force space duty and  assisted
him with his medical school applications.  Colonel C was not  aware
of the DOPMA changes until the Spring of 1985  and,  as  a  result,
would have had no reason to have addressed  the  subject  with  the
applicant during this intervening period.


      c.  During those years, the best Colonel  C  could  say  was:
”…he would have briefed the applicant on  the  information  he  had
available at the time and it was  no  different  from  how  he  had
previously been counseled by Dr. W; and that, using the information
contained in the briefing book the applicant, like his 80,  81,  82
and 83 colleagues, was instructed by this office  that  upon  USUHS
graduation he would be on par with his fellow USAFA  graduates  and
receive four years' credit for his time in medical school….”


      d.  The applicant never mentioned being misled by  Colonel  C
for well over ten years.  To the contrary, he  based  his  original
claim of misleading information about CSC for pay on  briefings  by
the USUHS registrar and information in the USUHS Bulletin.   As  an
example, in a letter to the  Board,  dated  11 December  1986,  the
applicant stated: “…My faith in the ‘Great Way of  Life’  has  been
significantly damaged by the simple fact that I was not allowed  to
go to medical school in 1981  and  later  made  significant  career
decisions based on erroneous information provided by USUHS.”


      e.  In his request for reconsideration in 1992, he also  made
no mention of being misled by Colonel C.  Even  when  he  submitted
his request, via a new DD  Form  149  on  7 April  1997,  he  never
claimed Colonel C miscounseled him.


      f.  Responding to a  request  for  clarification,  Colonel  C
finally says while he cannot remember the exact time, he did review
the advantages of a USUHS education with the applicant  to  include
four years’ credit for time spent  in  training,  i.e.,  CSC.   The
majority does not find this statement  sufficiently  compelling  to
recommend relief.  As noted earlier, since Colonel C did  not  find
out about the change in law until the Spring of 1985, why would  he
continue to address the  subject?   As  far  as  he  was  concerned
nothing  had  changed  since  the  applicant  received  his   USUHS
briefings from Lt Colonel W while a cadet at the USAFA.


      g.  Colonel C also reminded us the applicant had to  give  up
opportunities  elsewhere  in  the  Air  Force,  like  UPT,  to   be
recommended  for  medical  school.   However,  this  statement  was
initially contradicted by Lt Colonel W, who was solely  responsible
for counseling the applicant while  he  was  at  the  Academy.   Lt
Colonel W stated, in the Fall of 1979, the  applicant  successfully
competed for an HPAC recommendation and  permission  to  apply  for
USUHS, but was not accepted.  Since his  desire  was  to  become  a
doctor, he waived an opportunity to go to pilot  training  and  was
assigned to a space systems program.


      h.  In  a  statement  of  clarification,  Lt  Colonel  W  now
confirms that the applicant had to give up opportunities  in  order
to compete for HPAC selection.  We  now  find  that  at  best,  the
applicant may have  been  forced  to  give  up  an  opportunity  to
participate in a UPT lottery; an  activity  or  event  regarded  as
having an outcome depending on fate.  Given the  ambiguity  in  the
statements of Colonel C and Lt Colonel  W,  the  majority  believes
that, albeit well-intended, their support is motivated  more  by  a
sincere  belief  that  the  applicant  and  the  remainder  of  his
colleagues are victims of institutional inequity as  opposed  to  a
genuine error or injustice.  But, as the Board stated earlier,  any
relief based on these grounds should be addressed to the Congress.

7.  Turning to question 2 (i.e., As a result of this counseling did
he exclude other USAF career opportunities?),  since  we  have  not
found an adequate  basis  to  conclude  he  was  miscounseled,  the
majority of the panel does not agree that he  excluded  other  USAF
career opportunities based on misinformation.  Rather, the majority
believes he voluntarily waived other  career  opportunities  so  he
could pursue his ultimate goal of  obtaining  a  medical  education
through the USUHS.

8.  Responding to question 3 (i.e., Has sufficient BCMR  precedent,
to include sister service BCMR action, been  established  to  grant
CSC?), the majority of the panel's  answer  is  no.   The  majority
notes that:

      a.  Previous panels of the Board granted four years of CSC to
a number of 1987 – 1989 USUHS/AFHPSP graduates  some  of  whom  had
also graduated from the Air Force Academy.  The  panels’  decisions
were based on clear-cut evidence of  miscounseling  by  responsible
Air Force personnel and an indication that the officers had "burned
their bridges  behind  them"  (e.g.,  waived  UPT,  resigned  their
Regular Air  Force  appointments,  etc.)  at  the  time  they  were
presented their official USUHS/AFHPSP contracts.


      b.  The officers believed their  decisions  were  irrevocable
and argued persuasively that they believed their only viable option
was   to   attend   the   government-sponsored   medical   training
notwithstanding the change in law that discontinued CSC  for  their
attendance.


      c.  Granting these cases, in the opinion of the  majority  of
the panel, is consistent with  our  statutory  mandate  to  correct
errors and/or injustices.  The earlier panels  of  the  Board  were
aware that their actions would  cause  a  degree  of  institutional
inequity and would seem to beg for relief on the grounds of equity.
 The  panels  stated,  however,  that  the  plain  and  unambiguous
language of the applicable law left no doubt the Congress  intended
that  effective  September  15,  1981,  graduates  of   government-
sponsored  medical  training  would  no  longer  be   entitled   to
constructive service credit for computation of  basic  and  retired
pay.  Therefore, the earlier Board panels believed  any  relief  on
the basis of institutional inequity  should  be  addressed  to  the
Congress in the form of a request for an amendment to the  statute.
The majority of  this  panel  agrees  and  reaffirms  the  previous
panels' position on the issue of institutional inequity.

9.  Lastly, the applicant believes since his case is  identical  to
the case of Dr. St. P,  who  received  favorable  action  from  the
ABCMR, it would be an egregious miscarriage of justice to award Dr.
St P CSC and not consider a  similar  finding  in  the  applicant’s
case.  The majority of the panel disagrees.  Dr. St. P, unlike  the
applicant, after being in the Regular Army for  a  lengthy  period,
returned to the United States Military Academy at  West  Point  and
was erroneously briefed along with the other  1983  medical  school
candidates.   The  briefing  officials  still  had  access  to  the
outdated  USUHS  Bulletin  and  Dr.  St   P’s   miscounseling   was
corroborated by the Military Academy Surgeon.  Thus, in view of the
majority of the panel, Dr. St. P's case is clearly  distinguishable
from the applicant's and cannot serve  as  a  basis  to  grant  the
relief requested.

10.  Our esteemed colleagues in the  minority  recommend  that  the
applicant’s request for four years of CSC  for  his  attendance  at
USUHS be granted in the interest of fairness and consistency.  They
note that, with the exception of three cases, previous panels  have
recommended favorable action on all applications submitted  by  the
applicant’s contemporaries (USAFA graduates); and that these  cases
were approved based primarily on miscounseling.  They believe  that
there was not a  consistent  requirement  to  provide  evidence  of
miscounseling, only an acknowledgement by the Board that there  was
much confusion and uncertainty  surrounding  the  dissemination  of
information; and that the cases were granted  in  the  interest  of
equity and uniformity.  Based on the applicant’s testimony and  the
additional evidence, the minority  members  of  the  panel  believe
there is sufficient doubt  as  to  whether  proper  counseling  was
provided in the  applicant’s  case;  and  that  he  may  have  been
miscounseled, at least, to the same degree as other individuals  in
which the Board has granted relief.  Lastly, the  minority  of  the
panel members do not believe that the applicant should be held to a
higher  standard  of  proof  of   miscounseling   than   were   his
contemporaries.

11.  Since the applicant changed his contention from  miscounseling
by USUHS officials to a USAFA official (Colonel C) ten years  after
the fact, an argument could be made that he indeed should  be  held
to a higher standard of proof of an alleged error or an  injustice.
However, in order to dispose of the applicant’s  case,  we  do  not
need to hold him to a higher standard - merely  the  same  standard
that his contemporaries who were granted relief were held to; i.e.,
unequivocal evidence of  miscounseling  by  responsible  Air  Force
Academy personnel.  In this respect, we note that:

      a.  Colonel C, who the applicant belatedly asserts  counseled
him  incorrectly  concerning   CSC   for   attendance   at   USUHS,
unequivocally stated that he miscounseled the other cadets  at  the
Academy through the spring of 1985.  [Applicant graduated from  the
Academy in 1980 and could  not  have  possibly  been  counseled  by
Colonel  C  during  this  time  frame.]   Colonel  C’s  unambiguous
statement, the fact that the USUHS Brochure available to the cadets
still indicated that graduates of  that  medical  school  would  be
authorized CSC, the fact that a number of the cadets  in  the  lead
cases had resigned their Regular commissions and  accepted  Reserve
appointments in anticipation of entering the USUHS, and  could  not
have been aware of the change in the applicable law until they were
presented  with  their  USUHS  contracts,  constituted   sufficient
grounds for the Board to believe that the cases of the other cadets
briefed by Colonel C should be summarily granted.  For example, Dr.
B was one of the  lead  cases.   Based  on  Colonel  C’s  erroneous
counseling, this officer resigned his Regular Air Force appointment
on 2 June 1983 and accepted a Reserve appointment  while  still  at
the Academy.  The officer was not aware of the change in law  until
he received his AFHPSP contract two weeks before  entering  medical
school in August 1983.  The applicant, on the  other  hand,  signed
his USUHS contract on 28 March 1983 which put him  on  notice  that
CSC was no longer authorized.   However,  he  did  not  resign  his
Regular commission and accept a Reserve  appointment  until  August
1983.  Since applicant was presumably made aware of the  change  in
the law by at least the signing of his contract well in advance  of
the date he resigned his Regular Air Force commission, the majority
believes it is self-evident receipt of  CSC  was  not  the  pivotal
issue in his decision to attend the USUHS.

      b.  Since the circumstances of all of the cadets  briefed  by
Colonel C through the spring of 1985, with  the  exception  of  the
applicant, were virtually identical to Dr B’s, the Air Force agreed
to recommend favorable action in order to  expedite  processing  of
their claims.  Since the evidence was clear and convincing that the
cadets  had  been  miscounseled,   had   resigned   their   Regular
appointments and had no way of knowing that  they  were  ineligible
for  the  CSC  until  after  the  fact  or  until  presented  their
USUHS/AFHPSP contracts for signature, the  majority  believes  that
this was the appropriate thing to do.

12.  In summary, the majority members of the panel agree  with  the
recommendations from AFPC/JA and adopt their rationale, as well  as
our own, as the bases for our decision that the applicant has again
failed to sustain his burden of establishing that  he  has  been  a
victim of either  an  error  or  an  injustice.   Accordingly,  the
majority recommends that his application again be denied.
___________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:

A majority of the panel finds insufficient  evidence  of  error  or
injustice and recommends the application be denied.
___________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket  Number
86-04015 in a Formal Hearing on 26 June 2002, under the  provisions
of AFI 36-2603.  In addition, the Board considered  the  additional
statements submitted by  Colonel  C  and  Colonel  W  in  Executive
Session on 24 October 2002.

      Mrs. Barbara A. Westgate, Chair
      Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Vice Chair
      Mr. Charles E. Bennett, Member
      Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Member
      Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Member

      Mr. Mack M. Burton, Executive Director
      Mr. Ralph Prete, Chief Examiner

By a  majority  vote,  the  members  voted  to  deny  the  request.
Mr. Bennett and  Ms.  Bradley  voted  to  correct  the  record  and
submitted a  joint  minority  report.   The  following  documentary
evidence was considered:

    Exhibit AAA.  DD Form 149, dated 13 Nov 01, w/atchs.
    Exhibit BBB.  Addendum to Record of Proceedings, AFBCMR
                  86-04015, dated 24 Aug 98, w/Exhibits AA thru HH.
    Exhibit CCC.  Letter, HQ AFPC/JA, dated 7 Mar 02.
    Exhibit DDD.  Letter from Applicant, dated 3 Apr 02.
    Exhibit EEE.  Transcript of Proceedings.
    Exhibit FFF.  Letter from Col C, dated 30 Jul 02.
    Exhibit GGG.  Letter from Lt Col W, dated 21 Oct 02.
    Exhibit HHH.  Minority Opinion, dated 17 Oct 02.




                                   BARBARA A. WESTGATE
                                   Chair
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD
               FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)

SUBJECT:  AFBCMR Application of APPLICANT

      I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the
recommendation of the Board members.  A majority found that the applicant
had not provided sufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommended
the case be denied.  I concur with that finding and their conclusion that
relief is not warranted.  Accordingly, I accept their recommendation that
the application be denied.

      Please advise the applicant accordingly.




                                        JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                        Director
                                        Air Force Review Boards
Agency