RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: BC-2002-03145
INDEX CODE 128.10
COUNSEL:
HEARING DESIRED: No
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The debt she incurred as a result of her participation in the Armed
Forces Health Professions Scholarship Program (HPSP) be cancelled.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
She did not “drop out” of the program; she was medically disqualified
for active duty. The medical disqualification was entirely unsolicited
on her part and she did everything in her power to comply with what
was asked of her. The military’s lethargy, negligence, ineptness and
inefficiency inordinately delayed the finalization of her
disqualification and discharge process. She and her husband had no
idea what they should do and she was prevented from entering a
civilian residency program for 2000. She lost a year in which she
could have been participating in a residency and earning income.
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit
A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The following information was extracted from official documents
provided by the applicant, her military records, and the Secretary of
the Air Force Personnel Council (SAF/PC) case file.
The applicant entered the HPSP on 7 Aug 95 and had an estimated
completion date of Jun 00. She attended the University of Arkansas for
Medical Sciences in Little Rock, AR.
The 1995 Armed Forces HPSP contract stipulates in paragraph 6c that
should an individual become unable to commence the period of active
duty service commitment (ADSC) specified or become unable to complete
the medical education program, the individual agreed to reimburse the
US in one lump sum for the total cost of advanced education paid by
the US government as specified in Title 10, USC, Section 2005.
Paragraph 10 states that “If I . . . fail to meet the applicable
standards of the United States Air Force (including physical fitness),
or if I otherwise fail to complete my obligation(s) under this
agreement, then . . .” the Air Force may, among other options,
separate the individual and recoup the total cost of the advanced
education in lieu of active duty.
Individuals selected for active duty residency training are required
to complete an Entry on Active Duty (EAD) physical the year before
actually entering active duty. The applicant had her EAD exam on 22
Jul 99. Apparently, the applicant had begun experiencing migraines in
Feb 98 but had continued taking classes. Her pre-commissioning
physical brought her condition to USAF attention. Her function was
reduced during an attack and medications were required.
On 23 Dec 99, the applicant was selected by the 1999 Joint Service
Graduate Medical Education Selection Board (JSGMESB) to complete a
categorical residency in pediatrics at Keesler AFB, her fifth training
location preference, in a deferred training status (deferred from
entering active duty to complete the residency training). Her training
was to begin on 1 Jul 00 and end on 30 Jun 03. As a result of her
selection for training in an active duty program, she was advised to
withdraw from the civilian match.
On 13 Jan 00, HQ ARPC/SGP advised the applicant that review of her
physical exam was completed and entries identified a history of
migraine headaches that could be disqualifying for military service.
The applicant was experiencing debilitating migraine headaches about
twice weekly which lasted for up to three days each. The applicant was
selected for entry into active duty for an evaluation of this
diagnosis to determine if a medically disqualifying condition existed.
She was requested to complete a full evaluation by a military
provider to determine her fitness for military service. According to
HQ AFPC/DPAME, the applicant was reminded on 7 Mar 00 to contact ARPC
regarding the status of her neurology consultation requested on 13 Jan
00. A brain MRI on 18 Apr 00 was normal.
On 4 May 00, 18 days before graduation, the applicant was medically
disqualified from the HPSP and her benefits were stopped. On 8 Jun 00,
HQ AFPC/DPAME recommended to HQ ARPC/SGX that the applicant be
discharged at the earliest date and recoupment action be taken. In a
memo dated 30 Aug 00, the applicant indicated she had been plagued
with migraine headaches for about two and one-half years and continued
to experience debilitating migraine headaches on average about twice a
week and lasting up to three days.
On 2 Oct 00, HQ ARPC/DPPS advised the applicant that the ARPC Surgeon
determined she was medically disqualified for continued military
service due to debilitating migraine headaches and she was being
recommended for discharge. On 15 Oct 00, the applicant tendered her
resignation and acknowledged her understanding that the funds expended
for her education may be recouped. On 18 Oct 00, she acknowledged that
the Air Force had expended funds for educational assistance and that
recoupment may occur if she voluntarily separated or was involuntarily
discharged for a physical disqualification, in accordance with the
terms of her agreement with the Air Force.
A 30 Oct 00 legal review by the HQ ARPC staff judge advocate
recommended to the ARPC commander that the applicant’s resignation be
approved and recoupment be waived. On 31 Jan 01, HQ ARPC recommended
that SAF/PC accept the applicant’s resignation and recoupment action
be waived. SAF/PC considered the applicant’s case on 16 Feb 01 and
recommended that her honorable discharge be approved and that
approximately $34,338 in direct educational expenses be recouped
(statute at that time precluded recoupment of an additional $38,456 in
stipends). SAF/PC noted that a signed copy of the applicant’s FY95
HPSP contract could not be located despite a diligent search by ARPC,
AFIT and AFPC.
On 21 Feb 01, the Secretarial designee approved the applicant’s
resignation and directed her discharge along with recoupment of funds
expended on her HPSP education. The applicant was discharged from all
appointments on 1 Mar 01.
As a result of her discharge, the applicant incurred a debt of
approximately $34,338 for tuition, books and supplies. The applicant
apparently advised the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS)
that she was unable to make payments of $368.10 towards the debt. DFAS
advised her to file an AFBCMR appeal. On 6 Aug 02, the applicant’s
counsel at that time forwarded a letter to a collection agency
contending the debt was in dispute.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPAME provides a generic copy of the 1995 HPSP contract they
assert the applicant would have signed accepting the scholarship
program. They claim that, consistent with Title 10, USC, Section 2005,
the HPSP contract [provided by DPAME] states in paragraph 6c that
“Should I become unable to commence the period of ADSC specified in
this contract because of physical disqualification, I agree to
reimburse the United States in one lump sum for the total cost of
advanced education paid by the US government as specified in 10 USC
2005.” [Note: However, paragraph 6c of the generic contract provided
by DPAME does not specify physical disqualification--see Statement of
Facts and paragraph 10 of the HPSP contract DPAME provided. DPAME
acknowledged their misquote via email.] The applicant agreed to the
terms of the contract and should be required to reimburse the
government. Denial is recommended.
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the
applicant on 27 Nov 02 for review and comment within 30 days.
On 6 Mar 03, sanitized copies of a 12 Oct 00 SAF/MI memorandum and a
21 Aug 02 legal review regarding two previous and separate HPSP cases
were mailed to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days.
The transmittal letter also asked the applicant to provide the Board
with a copy of her signed HPSP contract.
A copy of the AFBCMR letter, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.
The applicant indicated she did not have immediate access to her HPSP
contract and believed her counsel had a copy. She added that the
military deliberately withdrew her from the civilian match program
knowing she would be medically disqualified from the military. The
military’s intentional and inept delay regarding her disqualification
was unjust because she was prevented from earning a pediatrician’s
average annual income of $140,000. Since she did not earn income as a
doctor for one year, she believes it would be fair to forgive the
debt. The medical disqualification was entirely unsolicited on her
part. Also, she never “dropped out,” she was medically disqualified.
She wants a swift and just resolution.
The applicant’s complete response, with attachment, is at Exhibit F.
On 14 Apr 03, copies of the Air Force Evaluation, the AFBCMR letter,
and the applicant’s response were forwarded to the counsel indicated
in the applicant’s rebuttal. The transmittal letter requested that
counsel forward a copy of the applicant’s HPSP contract, and any other
comments he wished to make, to this office within 30 days. As of this
date, counsel has submitted no response.
_________________________________________________________________
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 to warrant waiving or voiding the
applicant’s HPSP debt. Section 2005 of Title 10, USC, as referenced in
paragraph 6c of the contract provides the statutory authority to
recoup for advanced educational assistance. Pursuant to this
authority, paragraph 10 provides that if a member fails to meet the
applicable standards of the US Air Force, including physical fitness,
the Air Force may, at its option, separate the member and recoup the
total cost of advanced education in lieu of active duty. When the
applicant entered into the HPSP contract, she was on notice of the
requirement that she must meet, and continue to meet, Air Force
physical standards. The contract additionally placed the applicant on
notice of the consequences of being found physically unfit for
service. The Air Force made the determination that she was not
physically qualified to continue in the program, as it was required to
do, and followed the express terms of the contract thereafter. While
true the applicant’s disqualifying condition was not the result of
misconduct or voluntary action, it is also true the condition arose
through no fault of the government. The issue is not one of blame or
fault. The parties to the contract entered into a clear document which
provided the applicant would reimburse the government for the costs of
her medical education up to that point if she became physically
disqualified. The Air Force has routinely asserted its right to recoup
the costs of education provided to medically disqualified individuals
under the HPSP when their medical condition does not preclude them
from practicing their profession. The applicant will benefit from this
education for years to come. We believe that the US taxpayer should
receive the benefit of the bargain into which it entered with the
applicant. While the applicant’s condition precludes her from serving
in the military, she should not obtain a windfall because of that
fact. Further, the applicant has not substantiated her allegation that
the Air Force deliberately delayed the evaluation process and
intentionally precluded her from earning a year’s income in the
civilian sector. The applicant has submitted no convincing evidence
that she was incorrectly diagnosed, that the medical processing was
unduly or intentionally protracted, or that she was treated
differently than any other HPSP recipient similarly situated. In view
of the above and absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find
no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.
_________________________________________________________________
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 in
Executive Session on 12 June 2003 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Vice Chair
Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Member
Ms. Cheryl Jacobson, Member
The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2002-03145 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 14 Feb 02(received 18 Nov 02),
w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPAME, dated 20 Nov 02.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Nov 02.
Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 6 Mar 03.
Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 30 Mar 03, w/atch.
Exhibit G. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 14 Apr 03.
THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
Vice Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-03145
On 13 Jan 00, HQ ARPC/SGP advised the applicant that review of her physical exam was completed and entries identified a history of migraine headaches that could be disqualifying for military service. The applicant was selected for entry into active duty for an evaluation of this diagnosis to determine if a medically disqualifying condition existed. The transmittal letter also asked the applicant to provide the Board with a copy of her signed HPSP contract.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2001-00295
The applicant’s rebuttal, with attachments, is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, General Law Division, HQ USAF/JAG, noted that Section 2005 provides for recoupment if a member fails to complete the ADSC voluntarily or due to misconduct. On 14 Aug 01, DFAS-POCC/DE advised the applicant that, based on her placement on the TDRL, it was inappropriate at this time to recoup monies which might not be owed if...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2006-00282
The record demonstrates that she has secured full time employment in the medical career field for which the Air Force funded her education and training. Under the contract HPSP reimbursement would be triggered if the applicant were unable to complete her medical education program or commence the period of ADSC, failed to meet applicable Air Force physical procurement standards, or was involuntarily separated because her retention was no longer clearly consistent with the interest of...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-01710
The Secretary certainly would not be authorized to include a provision in the contract that provided for recoupment in cases where an officer was involuntarily discharged for medical reasons when the statute otherwise provides that such discharge must be on the basis of a voluntary failure to complete active duty or because of misconduct. Finally, counsel discusses HQ USAF/JAG’s position that paragraph 6(b) of the HPSP contract controls regardless of the reason for disqualification, the...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Physician Education Branch, HQ AFPC/DPAME, reviewed this application and states that applicant signed her Health Professions Scholarship Program Contract (HPSP), thereby agreeing to the terms of the contract. Thus, by reports or physical examination required by the service, with results known to the service, the service in 1987 and again in 1989 knew of applicant’s endometriosis and further...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-00904
_________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The SAF/MRB (Legal Advisor) notes the DoD guidance, dated 18 Sep 07, clearly states “that where the inability to serve was due to medical conditions beyond the member’s control recoupment would not be sought.” Applicant’s case was considered in Jan 07 under the stricter guidance dated 8 Apr 05, but counsel argues that the Board should follow the Sep 07 guidance and find the Jan 07 decision...
The applicant’s responses and the state senator’s letter are provided at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ USAF/JAG notes the applicant is correct that [paragraph 11] of his contract did not obligate him to repay the costs of his education. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the...
His oncologist has stated that, had a testicular exam been done in October 1993, the cancer would have been diagnosed then. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Physical Education Branch, HQ AFPC/DPAME, reviewed the case and states that for the period 1986-1994, while in Medical School on HPSP Scholarship and while completing his residency, the applicant was in an inactive, obligated Reserve status. A copy of the complete Air...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-04303
The initial action, taken by the Air Force, in disqualifying her from the scholarship program required her to drop out of medical school and resign her commission. On 19 November 1999, the applicant’s 30 August 1999 resignation was accepted by the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC). It was only after she informed the Air Force of her decision to drop out of medical school that she was told she could not be discharged for depression and that the information and guidance...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2002-03351
Whether the applicant’s symptoms in the months prior to entering active duty were of such character or severity that would have warranted reporting by the applicant cannot be clearly determined from the available evidence, but evidence does suggest that onset of clinically significant symptoms occurred following entry onto active duty. Upon this review, the Board will find that absolutely no evidence of any mental health conditions existed prior to signing the AFHPSP contact on August 29,...