RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-00334
                                        INDEX CODE:  104.00
                                        COUNSEL: NONE
                                        HEARING DESIRED: NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He  be  placed  in  the  Educational  Delay  Program  (EDP)  and   his
participation in the Health Professions Scholarship Program (HPSP)  be
terminated.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He accepted an Air Force ROTC Type II scholarship  when  he  graduated
from  high  school.   During  his  second  year  at  Loyola  Marymount
University, he applied for and received an HPSP scholarship that would
pay for his future medical school if he chose to accept it.  Since  he
was not accepted into medical school  before  graduating  in  December
2002, the HPSP scholarship offer was revoked.  On January 11, 2003, he
was commissioned and put on administrative delay for eight  months  in
order to continue applying for medical school.  Once he  was  accepted
to a private medical school he  reapplied  for  the  scholarship.   In
March 2003, he again received the HPSP scholarship but did not  accept
it.  He wanted to wait and see if he would be accepted into  a  public
institution that he could afford.  When he was accepted into a  public
school, he contacted AFIT for  information  regarding  an  educational
delay request.  He was  told  his  ROTC  detachment  commander  should
submit the request.  The ROTC detachment commander refused  to  submit
the request because he felt that he (applicant) was  trying  to  avoid
his responsibility to the Air Force.   It  was  two  days  before  the
scholarship deadline and he felt he had no other option other than  to
accept the HPSP and later request it  be  terminated.   He  wishes  to
fulfill his military obligation upon graduation from  medical  school,
but would like to limit his obligation so that he may fulfill his goal
of being a medical missionary.

In support of his appeal, applicant submits a  personal  statement,  a
copy of his letter to the ROTC detachment commander and  a  supporting
statement.

His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant was appointed a second lieutenant, Reserve of the Air  Force
on 31 December 2002.   He  is  currently  participating  in  the  HPSP
program.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFOATS/JA recommends the application be denied.  AFOATS/JA states that
the applicant has not submitted sufficient  evidence  to  substantiate
his request and that it appears that he tried to play the waiting game
for his best personal options and in a time crunch chose to accept the
HPSP.  AFOATS/JA advises that in accordance with the AFROTC  contract,
all ROTC commissioned officers will incur a 4  year  Military  Service
Obligation,  and  any  that  are  accepted  into  a  special  program,
including  HPSP,  will  have  their  Active  Duty  Service  Commitment
extended.  The applicant did  not  apply  for  the  educational  delay
within 90 days of the projected  commissioning  date;  therefore,  the
detachment commander did not abuse his authority by not accepting  the
application,  advises  AFOATS/JA.   The  AFOATS/JA  evaluation,   with
attachments, is at Exhibit B.

After summarizing the facts of the case,  AFPC/DPAMF2  recommends  the
application  be  routed  through  AFROTC  so  they  may  address   the
educational delay package  denial  rationale,  the  educational  delay
options  and  the  HPSP  self-elimination  process.   The  AFPC/DPAMF2
evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 12 March 2004, the Air Force evaluations were sent to the applicant
for review and comment.  As of this date, this office has not received
a 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.  After a thorough review  of  the
evidence of record and applicant's submission, we  are  not  persuaded
that he should be placed in the Educational Delay  Program  (EDP)  and
his participation in the Health Professions Scholarship Program (HPSP)
be terminated.  Applicant's contentions are duly noted; however, we do
not  find  these  assertions,  in  and  by  themselves,   sufficiently
persuasive to  override  the  evidence  of  record  or  the  rationale
provided by the Air Force.  Therefore, in the absence  of  documentary
evidence which would lead us to believe his commander acted improperly
in this matter, we agree with the opinion and  recommendation  of  the
Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt  their  rationale
as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has  not  been  the
victim of an error or injustice.  Accordingly, we  find  no  basis  to
grant this request.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate
the existence of probable 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 29 April 2004, under the provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                  Mr. Jackson A. Hauslein, Jr, Panel Chair
                  Mr. James W. Russell, III, Member
                  Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, 5 Jan 03, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Letter, HQ AFOATS/JA, dated 8 Mar 04, w/atchs.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPAMF2, dated 12 Feb 04.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 Mar 04.




                                   JACKSON A. HAUSLEIN JR.
                                   Panel Chair