RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-00890
INDEX CODE: 129.01
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be given constructive credit for the work he accomplished on his
PHD.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He should be awarded constructive credit for his PHD in molecular
nutrition. He states that this area of study has a direct link to the
field of pathology and subsequently his job responsibilities. He
believes that had he known that he could have submitted statements
prior to his commissioning, requesting entry in a higher grade, it
would have been granted. Applicant feels he qualifies for the
constructive credit under the guidelines specified in Air Force
Instruction (AFI) 36-2005, Table 2.7, Rule 26.
In support of his appeal, applicant has provided a copy of AFI 36-
2005, two personal statements, and a letter of support from his
commander.
His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant entered the Regular Air Force on 11 October 2002 as a
Captain (0-3) as a result of receiving constructive credit for his
education. He is currently a staff pathologist at the --th Medical
Group, Andrews AFB, MD. He is serving in the grade of Captain and has
a date of separation (DOS) of 12 November 2005.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPAME reviewed this application and recommends denial. DPAME
states that not all PhD’s are appropriate for constructive credit.
DPAME notes AFI 36-2005, Table 2.7, Rule 26 and admits that it does
provide some latitude on a case-by-case basis for the award of
constructive credit but is clear that in order for education to be
creditable it must add adjunctive skills to the primary specialty and
must contribute directly to performance in the specialty in which the
applicant is appointed. In the initial review of the application for
constructive credit, the application was judged as not contributing
directly to the performance of a pathologist and that it was unclear
as to whether or not the degree added adjunctive skills for a
pathologist. The original application was awarded constructive credit
that allowed the applicant to enter the Regular Air Force as a
Captain, but did not then, nor does it now, rise to the level required
to award constructive credit that would’ve allowed the applicant to
enter active duty as a major.
DPAME’s complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit B.
AFPC/DPPAOR reviewed this application and defers to the AFPC/DPAME
evaluation. DPPAOR’s evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on
23 May 2003 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date,
no response has been received by this office.
_________________________________________________________________
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 Force
offices of primary responsibility, in particular the advisory from
AFPC/DPAME which indicated that the applicant was awarded constructive
credit that allowed him to enter the Air Force as a captain, but that
the degree in question did not meet the requirements for additional
constructive service credit to allow him to enter active duty as a
major. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find
no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this
application.
4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been
shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will
materially add to our understanding of the issue(s) involved. Hence,
the request for a hearing 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2003-00890 in Executive Session on 17 July 2003, under the provisions
of AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, Panel Chair
Mr. Clarence D. Long, III, Member
Ms. Sharon Seymour, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 20 Feb 03, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPAME, dated 8 Apr 03, w/atchs.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPAOR, dated 1 May 02.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 May 03.
PATRICIA D. VESTAL
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04485
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-04485 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded four years of constructive service credit (CSC) for earning his PhD in Theoretical and Applied Mechanics (TAM). However, regardless of whether or not the applicants PhD adds adjunctive skill to his primary specialty, he cannot be...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00717
DPPAOR’s evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPPO reviewed this application in order to determine the applicant’s promotion eligibility. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 5 May 03. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 May 03.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01332
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Upon his reentry to active duty on 10 July 2004, he was not given constructive service credit for his MPAS. DPAMF2 states the applicant did have a break in service, but his Master of Physician Assistant Studies (MPAS) was not factored upon reentry since he earned this degree while on active duty as a Biomedical Sciences Corps (BSC) Medical Officer. His constructive credit was “l/2 time” of four years...
6000.13, dated 30 Jun 97, should be used to determine his DOR. However, if the decision is to grant the relief sought, the record should be corrected to show that the applicant was appointed into the Air Force Nurse Corps effective 30 Jun 97. A complete copy of the DPPAOR evaluation is at Exhibit B.
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00141
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00141 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He receive 48 months of additional constructive service credit (CSC) for the time he spent obtaining his Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) degree. Because he received four years of service credit for his MD degree, he was appointed to the grade of captain (O-3). While the Board notes the applicant is requesting 48...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02238
This is also the applicant’s pay date. Due to the fact the applicant was obligated 22 Oct 80 and his eligibility started in Aug 81, his request should be denied. The applicant’s service dates were computed correctly in accordance with AFI 36-2604, Service Dates and Dates of Rank.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00603
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-00603 INDEX CODE: COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His date of rank (DOR) to first lieutenant be adjusted from 4 July 2002 to 4 April 2001. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPAMF2 states that the applicant completed his Master’s...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01186
In a Constructive Service Credit Computation, the applicant was granted 2 years of credit for his Master of Science degree. 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 Force and adopt their rationale as the basis for the conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. The Air Force states that the applicant was misinformed by his recruiter regarding...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00716
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-00716 INDEX CODE: 102.07 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His date of rank (DOR) be adjusted to reflect constructive service credit (CSC) for 24 months versus 18 months. The DPPAO evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S...
Applicant requested an additional year of unfunded training from 1 Jul 98 to 30 Jun 99 for fellowship training in spine surgery; however, this request was denied by DPAME. Constructive credit is awarded once an individual enters active duty; HPSP graduates can be, and frequently are, deferred from active duty upon completion of medical school to obtain residency training (they enter active duty upon completion of their training program); and, USUHS students contractually must go to an...