RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-02472
            INDEX CODE:  128.06

            COUNSEL:  WALTER L. BOYAKI

            HEARING DESIRED: NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The bonus/loan agreements signed at the time of his appointment in the
New York Air National Guard (NY ANG) on 11 March 2001 be  honored;  or
in the alternative, he be allowed to be honorably discharged from  the
NY ANG.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He should be fairly reimbursed for honoring his part of  the  original
commitment to the ANG signed on 11 March 2001.  He  was  recruited  by
the ANG and told that his medical specialty qualified him for a  bonus
and loan  repayment  program.   He  joined  the  ANG  and  signed  the
agreements having no doubt that the agreements would be  honored.   He
has since found that his medical specialty does not qualify him for  a
bonus or loan repayment entitlement.  He questions  why,  in  November
2000, while he was being recruited, he was not told that  he  did  not
qualify for said entitlements.  He claims the ANG’s not honoring  that
which was promised as severely unfair, unethical, dichotomous, and  an
injustice.  He has performed his duties faithfully and in a  medically
competent manner and is upset he did not find  out  about  the  actual
qualifications for the entitlements  until  two  years  after  he  had
enlisted.  He believes himself a valuable member of the ANG, in charge
of  physical  examinations  and  standards,  he  has   completed   all
Professional Military Education (PME) required to be promoted to major
(04) and is mesmerized by the  fact  the  ANG  will  not  honor  their
original commitment in light of the  great  difficulty  they  have  in
recruiting and retaining physicians.   He  strongly  believes  he  was
recruited under false pretenses.  He signed the loan/bonus agreements,
in good faith and he should not be punished for the ignorance  by  the
ANG recruiters of the loan/bonus repayment criteria.   He  asks  that,
should the agreement not be honored by the ANG, he be  allowed  to  be
honorably discharged as he has held up his part of the agreement.

In support of his  appeal,  the  applicant  has  provided  a  personal
statement, copies of the signed agreements between  the  ANG  and  the
applicant, an AF Form 2096, Classification/On-The-Job Training Action,
letter to the New York Adjutant General (AG) asking for support,  memo
from ANG/DPMH, stating the applicant’s AFSC is not one that  qualifies
for any  bonus  or  any  loan  repayments,  a  letter  to  an  unnamed
addressee, letters from C/M Thomas M. Reynolds  to  applicant,  and  a
letter from LLI to C/M Reynolds.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant was initially appointed in the NY ANG, on 11 March 2001,
under the Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) 44F1, Family Physician.   He
signed a Statement of Agreement and Understanding on 11 Mar 01,  as  a
Family Physician (44F1), for school loan  repayment  entitlement.   He
signed  a  Cash  Bonus  for  Selected  Healthcare  Professionals  that
entitled him, effective  3  Nov  00,  to  receive  $30,000  under  the
qualifying AFSC 44FX (Family Physician).  He was moved, soon after, to
an Internist position, AFSC 44MX (backdated to his appointment in  Nov
00).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ANG/DPPI recommends denial.  Even though the applicant was in a  44F1,
Family Physician position, and later, in a 44MX,  Internist  position,
DPPI states he was not qualified to be in either one and therefore not
eligible for bonus/loan repayment entitlements.  The  only  Air  Force
Specialty (AFS) the applicant was qualified to be appointed to was the
44GX, General Practice Physician.

DPPI contends the applicant had not met  the  residency  criteria  for
either of the first two AFSC’s he was assigned to.  The only  position
he had performed a residency for was  that  of  the  General  Practice
Physician.  The AFSC for General Practice Physician (44GX) was not  on
the incentive-eligible list when he was appointed, nor  is  it  today.
DPPI notes that if the applicant would like to be  released  from  his
contract with the ANG due to breach of contract, he may do so  without
prejudice or fear of repercussion.

DPPI’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 3
October 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 an error or injustice.  While is was unfortunate that
the applicant was advised that he would be eligible for incentive pay,
we note  the  applicant  was  not  qualified  for  any  incentives  on
appointment in the ANG, as the Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) he  was
qualified for was not on  Secretary  of  Defense’s  (OSD’s)  incentive
eligibility list.  Further attempts  to  qualify  him  for  bonus/loan
repayment by assigning him to an AFSC that was on the OSD  eligibility
list were futile as he was not able to produce  documentation  showing
him board-certified (having  performed  mandatory  residence)  in  the
specialty.  The  latter  notwithstanding,  a  critical  administrative
oversight was committed  by  unit  personnel  during  the  recruitment
process that led  the  applicant  to  believe  he  would  qualify  for
entitlements that he, in fact, did not qualify for.  Therefore, we are
of the opinion, and as indicated by  ANG/DPPI,  the  applicant  should
request an honorable discharge and release from his  contract  without
prejudice or fear of repercussion.

_________________________________________________________________

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-
2003-02472  in  Executive  Session  on  6  November  2003,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Marilyn Thomas, Vice Chair
      Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Member
      Mr. J. Dean Yount, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 24 Jul 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, ANG/DPPI, dated 26 Sep 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Oct 03.



                                   MARILYN THOMAS
                                   Vice Chair