RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-01821
            INDEX CODE:  102.08

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His pay date and active duty service date be corrected  to  accurately
reflect a longevity of 24 years for  both  military  pay  and  service
credit.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He discovered in April 2002 that he would not be  receiving  longevity
credit for the four years he spent while  assigned  at  the  Uniformed
Services University at Bethesda, MD.  He believes  this  determination
to be unjust and contrary to the  information  he  received  in  1984,
before committing to the career path he set upon.

Other reasons the applicant believes the records to  be  in  error  or
unjust and the evidence submitted in support  of  the  appeal  are  at
Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 20 May 1984, the  applicant  was  appointed  a  second  lieutenant,
Reserve of the  Air  Force,  Medical  Service  Corps  (MSC),  and  was
voluntarily ordered to extended active  duty  on  1  August  1984  for
assignment to the Uniformed Services University  of  Health  Sciences.
At that time, he was credited with prior active duty enlisted  service
in the Regular Air Force from 10 October 1975 to 9  August  1981.   He
then enlisted in the Air Force Reserve  on  23 September  1981  for  a
period of 8 years with assignment to the Obligated Reserve Section and
was enrolled as a student in the Air Force  Reserve  Officer  Training
Program (AFROTC), College Scholarship Program.

On 12 May 1988, the applicant was appointed  a  captain,  Regular  Air
Force (Medical Corps) and entered active duty on that same date.  In a
Statement of Service, prepared on 8 August 1988, it was indicated  the
applicant’s Total Active Federal Commissioned Service Date was 12  May
1988, his Total Federal Commissioned Service Date was 20 May 1984, his
Total Active Federal Military Service Date was 12 July 1982,  and  his
Pay date was 18 April 1982.  In a computation  of  service  creditable
under 10 USC 1405, dated 3 August 2000,  it  was  indicated  that  the
applicant was not entitled to credit for the period 20 May 1984 to  11
May 1988 and that his 1405 service date was 8 July 1982.

The applicant is currently serving on active  duty  in  the  grade  of
lieutenant colonel,  having  been  promoted  to  that  grade  with  an
effective date and a date of rank of 12 May 2000.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPAOR states that based on governing directives, the applicant’s
pay date was computed correctly; therefore, they recommend his request
be denied.  Applicant was not given pay credit for the period  20  May
1984 to 11 May 1988, time spent in USUHS per Title 10 USC Section 2126
which states “service not creditable while a  member  of  the  program
shall not be counted (1) in  determining  eligibility  for  retirement
other than by reason of a physical disability incurred while on active
duty as a member of the program; or (2) in computing years of  service
creditable under section 205 of title 37.”  Upon retirement  applicant
will be given additional 1405 multiplier credit of 3 years  11  months
and 22 days for time spent in USUHS.  If the decision is to grant  the
relief sought, DPPAOR stated that his pay date would be 26 April 1978.
 A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states that he was commissioned a second  lieutenant  on  20
May 1984 as documented, but his commission was not as an MSC  for  the
purpose of attending USUHS.  He received the Reserve commission  after
completing an AFROTC program at the University of Hawaii.  It was only
after matriculating to USUHS in August 1984, that his  commission  was
changed to an MSC category.  He further states that it was his  belief
in 1984, and remained so, that if achieving twenty years  service,  he
would be given service credit for the years spent at USUHS.  This  was
the understanding he had upon receiving briefings on  the  subject  at
the school.  It was not  until  this  spring,  after  having  attained
twenty years’ longevity, when he learned from AFPC the time would only
count if he retired.  Hence, he now understands that he  could  retire
with twenty-four years’ service or remain on active duty  with  twenty
years.

His active duty service commitment to the Air Force is  currently  one
year for reassignment  (July  2003),  and  one  year  for  an  ISP/MSP
contract (September 2003).  But there  are  many  reasons  beyond  the
contractual that must go into making a decision to  remain  or  retire
from the Air Force.  He respectfully asks the Board  to  consider  his
case and to recognize the sincerity of his perception and expectation.
 It is his appeal to have his pay date changed to 26 April 1978.

On 1 November 2002, in an effort to further  portray  the  element  of
ambivalence that existed  on  the  matter  of  longevity  credit,  the
applicant provided a portion of the University Bulletin from 1984  and
a 25 April 1985 letter on retired and longevity pay from the Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Manpower, Installations, and Logistics.   The
narrative depicts time as a medical student as active duty, but states
it neither counts in determining eligibility  nor  is  creditable  for
computing  retired  pay   once   retirement   eligibility   has   been
established.  This subject was addressed numerous times by a  civilian
lawyer, assigned to USUHS at the time.   The  Assistant  Secretary  of
Defense’s letter clarified the issue of crediting the  four  years  at
USUHS for computation of retired pay, citing public law.   The  letter
in paragraph three addresses the separate issue of  whether  the  four
years as a student should be credited for  basic  longevity  pay.   In
some iteration of this ongoing discussion, it is his recollection that
the concept of achieving twenty years resulting in four  years  credit
for retirement, was perceived (at least by him)  as  meaning  awarding
these same years towards longevity should the member choose to  remain
on active duty.

Whether this perception was the product of an ambivalent  communicator
or a befuddled receiver is the question put before the Board.

The  applicant’s   responses,   with   attachments,   and   additional
information are 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  error  or  injustice.   We  took  notice  of   the
applicant's complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the  case;
however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Staff
and adopt their rationale as the basis for  our  conclusion  that  the
applicant has not been the victim of an error or  injustice.   We  are
aware that, normally, the USUHS contract the applicant signed prior to
entering the  program  sets  forth  information  relating  to  service
credit.  We requested a copy of the applicant’s  contract  be  secured
for our review and were advised that a copy of the document could  not
be located.  This Board has always operated under the  principle  that
regularity is  presumed  in  the  conduct  of  actions  by  Air  Force
officials and that the burden for providing  a  showing  of  error  or
injustice rests with the party making such claims  --  the  applicant.
The law specifically precludes the award of  the  service  credit  the
applicant seeks in this appeal and, other than his own assertions,  he
has provided no  evidence  showing  he  was  miscounseled  or  treated
differently from  other  similarly  situated  members  who  enter  and
graduated from USUHS at the same time he did.  Accordingly, in view of
the above, the applicant’s request is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The  applicant  be  notified  that  the  evidence  presented  did  not
demonstrate the existence of 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  on  23
January 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Ms. Cathlynn Sparks, Panel Chair
                 Mr. John E. B. Smith, Member
                 Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 May 02, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAOR, dated 3 Aug 02, w/atchs.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 6 Sep 02.
   Exhibit E.  Applicant’s Letter, dated 18 Sep 02, w/atchs.




                                   CATHLYNN SPARKS
                                   Panel Chair