RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-03910
INDEX CODE: 128.06
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be reimbursed Incentive Special Pay (ISP) for the period of October 2001
through April 2002.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He submitted a late ISP contract for retroactive pay. His request was
denied and his appeal was denied. He served continuously during this time
period and met the eligibility provisions of the ISP contract. His delay
was due to post 11 Sep 01 preparedness and his deployment from December
2001 through March 2002.
In support of his request, applicant provided documentation associated with
his ISP contract request. His complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant is currently serving on extended active duty as a medical corps
officer in the grade of lieutenant colonel. The applicant's commander
submitted an ISP contract to DPAMF1 in May 2002 to be effective 1 Oct 01.
The request was denied by DPAMF1.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPAMF1 recommends denial. DPAMF1 states that on 20 May 02 the
347MDG/CC requested the applicant be paid retroactive ISP for 1 Oct 01
through 30 Sep 02. The commander stated that the applicant "overlooked
signing his contract" and had been on a 3-month long deployment. 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. Additionally, the 3-month deployment was not a valid reason to
authorize a retroactive payment; although deployment could have been
grounds for a 3-month waiver, he allowed another 3 months to pass after
returning from the deployment before addressing the issue. ISP is a
retention tool that carries a 1-year obligation beginning the date the
officer accepts such special pay, per Title 37, OASD/HA Letter dated 16 Aug
01, and AFPC/DPA MPFM 01-31. It is not normally allowed that a member
receive backdated special pay for time already served unless there is
evidence of failure on part of the Air Force. His legal counsel stated
that he consistently submitted late ISP contracts and despite late
submissions received full annual payment. DPAFM1 cannot account for those
circumstances. Retroactive payment was not authorized because of published
guidance. It was recommended that the applicant request USAF/SG authorize
the retroactive payment. However, authorization was not received from
USAF/SG. The DPAMF1 evaluation is at Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 17 Jan
03 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, this office has
received 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. We took notice of the applicant's
complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, the Board
majority agrees with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office
of primary responsibility and adopts their rationale as the basis for their
conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or
injustice. The Board majority believes that the applicant had reasonable
time prior to and subsequent to his deployment to submit his ISP contract,
yet he failed to do so. Persuasive evidence has not been presented which
would lead the majority of the Board to excuse his untimely submission.
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Board Majority
finds no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this
application.
_________________________________________________________________
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 Docket Number BC-2002-03910
in Executive Session on 9 Apr 03, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
Mr. Billy C. Baxter, Member
Ms. Martha Maust, Member
By a majority vote, the Board voted to deny the request. Mr. Gallogly
voted to correct the record and did not desire to submit a minority report.
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 14 Nov 02.
Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPAMF1, dated 8 Jan 03.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 17 Jan 03.
MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
Panel Chair
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD
FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)
SUBJECT: AFBCMR Application of
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
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...
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...
Although the applicant met the requirements for practice as a plastic surgeon in the civilian community, he failed to meet the Air Force requirements for plastic surgery certification (i.e., five-years general surgery residency and additional three-year plastic surgery fellowship). Applicant's complete response is attached at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Superintendent, Medical Special Pay Branch,...
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.
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). ___________________________________________________________________ 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...
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 | CY2003 | BC-2003-02567
Instructions in the memorandum directed the addressees to ensure eligible personnel, including deployed members, receive an opportunity to apply for the CSRB. After a thorough review of the evidence of record, we are persuaded that the applicant was not notified in a timely manner concerning his eligibility to apply for the CSRB. MARILYN THOMAS Vice Chair AFBCMR BC-2003-02567 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for...
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,...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-01126
He was eligible to receive the special pays as of 1 July 2009 since he had completed a fellowship prior to entering active duty. The applicant's complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit F. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPAMF1 recommends approval of ASP and ISP payments and state the applicant is eligible to receive ASP effective 1 July 2009 and pro rata Single-Year-ISP from 1 July 2009 to 18 Jan 2010. He...
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.