RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-01721
            INDEX CODE:  113.04
            COUNSEL:  NONE
            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

      MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 28 Nov 06

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) be changed from  2 March  2012
to 2 March 2009.

2.  An outside agency audit ADSC contracts for physicians managed by DPAME.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

In the fall of 1999 he was selected for  Orthopaedic  surgery  residency  at
Wilford Hall Medical Center.  In the ADSC contract his ADSC was extended  to
2 March 2009 for this training.  He thought  this  date  was  in  error  and
contacted AFPC and told them he felt this date should  be  in  2012,  rather
than 2009.  He was assured that 2009 was the  right  ADSC.   He  signed  the
contract and submitted it to DPAME.  During a recent  PCS  move  he  noticed
his ADSC had been changed to 2 March 2012.  He had received no  notification
of this change.  He requested and received a  faxed  copy  of  his  contract
along with a letter notifying him of an error in his ADSC  date.   He  acted
in good faith in bringing attention to what  he  initially  thought  was  an
error in his ADSC.  The ADSC contract contains a  statement  that  seems  to
allow the Air Force to not be held responsible  in  initial  calculation  of
the dates.  Applicant believes he should not be  held  responsible  for  the
repeated error of others after he initially identified it and brought it  to
their attention.  Applicant knows of at  least  two  other  individuals  who
have similar issues with discrepancies in their ADSC contracts.   There  was
a similar situation with ADSC contracts with personnel assigned to  AFIT  in
1999 or 2000.  At the time the ADSCs  were  reviewed  and  a  statement  was
issued allowing the officers a  chance  to  appeal  the  correction  to  the
contracts prior to the corrections being  made.   His  adjustment  was  made
without notification and when the notification was made he was not  informed
of his right to appeal.

In support of his  request,  applicant  provided  a  personal  statement,  a
notification letter from AFPC/DPAME, and a copy of a 10 Jul  00,  Air  Force
news article.  His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant was sponsored through the Air Force Academy  (USAFA)  from  August
1987 through May 1991, incurring a five year ADSC.  He received  sponsorship
through medical school  at  the  Uniformed  Services  University  of  Health
Sciences (USUHS) from August 1991  to  May  1995,  incurring  an  additional
seven year ADSC.  The total ADSC for the USAFA and USUHS was 12  years.   He
fulfilled 2 months and 15 days  of  his  USAFA  obligation  before  entering
USUHS leaving an  ADSC  of  11  years,  9  months,  and  15  days,  when  he
graduated.  From his USUHS graduation on 20 May 1995, to  the  beginning  of
his internship on 1 July 1995, he fulfilled 1  month  and  12  days  of  his
USAFA obligation leaving a remaining ADSC of  11  years,  8  months,  and  3
days.  He  served  as  a  staff  physician  from  July  1996  to  June  2000
fulfilling four years of his ADSC obligation and had a remaining ADSC  of  7
years, 8  months,  and  3  days.   He  applied  for  and  was  selected  for
Orthopaedic residency training at Wilford Hall from 1 July 2000 to  30  June
2004, incurring four years concurrent obligation.  Since his remaining  ADSC
was greater than the four years incurred for training at Wilford  Hall,  his
ADSC remained 7 years, 8  months,  and  3  days.   His  projected  date  for
completing his ADSC was 2 March 2012.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPAME recommends denial.  DPAME states ADSCs  are  manually  calculated
based on recipient's specific contracts,  which  are  signed  when  entering
medical training.  In his case, a number on the worksheet was  miscopied  as
4 years rather than 7 years and an  incorrect  ADSC  was  entered  into  the
database that generated his letter of acceptance  for  Orthopaedic  training
at Wilford Hall.   He  states  he  contacted  DPAME  prior  to  signing  his
contract on 12 Jan 00 but DPAME has no record of the  conversation.   On  24
Mar  04,  he  submitted  a  request  for  separation.    DPAME   recommended
disapproval of his request.   During  the  review  process  to  prepare  the
recommendation, the error in his ADSC date was noticed  and  corrected.   He
was advised of the  correction  on  6  May  04  although  according  to  the
applicant, he did not receive the letter  until  it  was  faxed  to  him  in
September 2004.

The Air Force acted in good faith in sponsoring him for training  at  USAFA,
USUSH,  and  Orthopaedic  residency.   ADSCs  are  calculated  manually  and
occasionally errors do occur.  An error did occur and  he  was  notified  by
letter as soon as it was discovered.  ADSCs are  governed  by  law  and  the
error in calculation does not change the  applicant's  obligation.   He  was
aware of  his  total  educational  ADSC  was  12  years  because  he  signed
contracts outlining the obligation for training.

The DPAME evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 24  Jun
05 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 an error or injustice.  The applicant requests  that  his  ADSC
date be changed to reflect 2 March 2009,  rather  than  2  March  2012.   He
states he received an ADSC contract which reflected an ADSC date of 2  March
2009.  Although he believed the contract  to  be  in  error  and  states  he
pointed the error out to officials at the Air  Force  Personnel  Center,  he
was assured the 2 March 2009 ADSC date was correct.  During  the  processing
of his request for hardship separation from the  Air  Force  the  error  was
discovered and corrected.  Applicant  believes  that  because  he  initially
pointed the error out and was assured no  error  existed  at  the  time,  he
should not he held liable and the 2 March 2009 ADSC should remain.  After  a
thorough review of the applicant's submission and the available evidence  of
record, we do not believe that the action taken to  correct  his  ADSC  date
was erroneous, inappropriate, or unjust.  We note that on several  occasions
the applicant accepted  and  signed  the  contractural  terms  of  his  ADSC
statements,  which  included  the  understanding  that  his  ADSC   may   be
recomputed based upon an error in the original computation.   Therefore,  we
agree with the opinion  and  recommendation  of  the  Air  Force  office  of
primary responsibility  and  adopt  its  rationale  as  the  basis  for  our
conclusion that the applicant has  not  been  the  victim  of  an  error  or
injustice.  In  the  absence  of  evidence  to  the  contrary,  we  find  no
compelling  basis  to  recommend  granting  the  relief   sought   in   this
application.

4.  With respect to the applicant's request for an audit of  ADSC  contracts
managed by DPAME, the authority of this Board is limited to  the  correction
of records; therefore,  action  on  that  portion  of  his  request  is  not
possible.

_________________________________________________________________

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-2005-
01721 in Executive Session on 9 Aug 05, under  the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

      Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Panel Chair
      Ms. Renee M. Collier, Member
      Mr. Richard K. Hartley, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 19 May 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPAME, dated 13 Jun 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 Jun 05.




                                   LAURENCE M. GRONER
                                   Panel Chair