RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-01868
            INDEX CODE:  128.10
            COUNSEL:  NONE
            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

      MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 14 Dec 06

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Remission of her indebtedness to the government for $50,516.00.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Her debt is the result of her discharge from the Air Force after failing  to
maintain a 2.0 grade point average.  Subsequent  to  her  disenrollment  she
submitted a statement to the Air Force Personnel  Center,  Force  Management
Branch, indicating she  was  willing  and  able  to  serve  her  contractual
obligation in the Air Force and that she would be willing  to  work  in  any
career field.  Her request was denied and she  was  notified  she  would  be
involuntarily separated and that recoupment of funds  would  be  recommended
to the Secretary of the Air Force (SAF).  Attempts to have  her  permanently
assigned to the Uniformed Services University  of  Health  Sciences  (USUSH)
were halted when it was determined that no  classifications  were  open  for
her due to force shaping.  She asked the SAF to consider the facts that  she
was eager to  stay  in  the  Air  Force,  that  her  disenrollment  was  not
voluntary and that recoupment action not be initiated.  On 21  Jun  05,  she
was notified she would be honorably discharged and an indebtedness would  be
established.

Her Military Service Obligation Contract and  Title  10  USC  Section  2005,
United States Code, states if she were to be academically disenrolled  prior
to completion of  medical  training,  she  would  incur  an  active  service
obligation and that there is a minimum required term  of  service  of  three
years upon termination of any participation  in  long-term  education.   The
contract also states she would reimburse the government  for  all  costs  if
she voluntarily  or  because  of  misconduct  or  other  reasons  failed  to
complete her active duty service commitment (ADSC).  She was  never  offered
classification in the Air Force to fulfill this  obligation  and  the  steps
she took to fulfill this obligation  were  halted.   She  was  involuntarily
separated under the provisions of AFI 36-2907, paragraph 1.16 wherein  there
is no mention of recoupment being an issue.

In support of her request, applicant provided a personal statement,  a  copy
of her USUSH contract,  an  extract  from  AFI  36-3207,  and  documentation
associated with her disenrollment action and subsequent attempts  to  remain
on active duty.  Her complete submission, with attachments,  is  at  Exhibit
A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant attended USUSH from 25 Aug 03 to 4 Feb 05.   She  was  disenrolled
from USUSH on 4 Feb 05.  On 9 Feb 05, she requested to serve her three  year
ADSC in the Air Force in another capacity.  On 21 Mar 05, she  was  notified
based on her qualifications, she could not be  utilized  in  the  Biomedical
Sciences Corps (BSC), Medical Services Corps  (MSC),  or  Line  of  the  Air
Force (LAF) and would be involuntarily  separated  from  the  military.   On
23 May 05, she was ordered by the SAF Personnel  Council  to  be  discharged
with an honorable discharge and ordered to reimburse the government for  the
funds expended on her education at USUSH.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPAME recommends denial.  DPAME states her request to serve  her  three
year contractual obligation in another capacity  was  coordinated  with  the
BSC, MSC, and LAF to allow them the opportunity to  access  her  to  fulfill
her three year  obligation.   Based  on  her  qualifications,  these  career
fields were unable  to  utilize  her  on  active  duty  and  separation  was
recommended based on force shaping.  Recoupment was based on Title  10,  USC
Section 2005.  She was not awarded a medical degree through  USUSH  and  was
not qualified to be accessed.  Since she was  not  professionally  qualified
to be utilized on  active  duty  as  an  officer,  she  was  discharged  and
recoupment was ordered by the SAF Personnel Council.  The DPAME  evaluation,
with attachment, is at Exhibit B.

AFPC/JA recommends denial.  JA states the USUSH contract she signed  stated,
if she was academically disenrolled prior to completion of  medical  school,
she would incur an ADSC of at least three years.  It  also  stated  the  SAF
"retains the prerogative to either order me to active duty in  any  capacity
of order monetary repayment of scholarship benefits."

She does not assert an error occurred in the  administrative  processes  and
of her  administrative  discharge,  instead  she  challenges  as  error  the
recoupment-given her offer to serve on active duty.  She does not  challenge
the appropriateness of her disenrollment form  USUSH;  however,  states  she
should be allowed to serve on active duty.  Citing Title  10,  USC  §  2005,
she interprets the law as requiring her to  serve  on  active  duty  if  she
fails to complete her education  and  only  authorizing  recoupment  if  she
voluntarily or  because  of  misconduct  fails  to  complete  that  service.
Contrary to her assertion, AFI 36-3207, paragraph 3.9, states the Air  Force
"normally requires recoupment of a portion  of  education  assistance...when
officers separate before completing the period of active  duty  they  agreed
to serve."  Within her USUSH contract it is clearly  the  intention  of  the
Air Force and the understanding of both parties that she  was  to  reimburse
the United States if she was separated prior to  serving  her  ADSC  or  was
disenrolled.  In signing, she acknowledged it  was  the  SAF's  decision  to
either order her to active duty or order recoupment if she was  disenrolled.


She failed to meet requirements for entry into BSC, MSC, or LAF.  It is  not
surprising her services were not required considering the Air Force  has  an
excess of over 4,000  officers.   10  USC  §  2005  authorizes  the  SAF  to
prescribe other terms and conditions to protect the interests of the  United
States.  While it is true her disenrollment and discharge were not a  result
of  misconduct  or  voluntary  action,  it  is  also  true  her  failure  to
academically succeed was through no fault of the government.  The  terms  of
the contract were clear and recoupment is authorized.  She  has  been  given
almost two years of  medical  education.  Although  she  failed  to  earn  a
degree, this  educational  expense  was  given,  paid  for,  and  cannot  be
retrieved.  To permit her to receive two years of advanced education, at  no
cost to her, would amount to her being unjustly enriched.

The JA evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant responded  that  her  problem  is  with  the  fact  that  she  was
involuntarily separated and the fact  that  she  was  then  charged  $50,516
despite the fact that there was a position  for  her  at  USUHS.   She  does
assert that an error occurred in her discharge  processing.   It  is  unjust
for the Air Force to involuntarily separate her  and  then  charge  her  for
failing to complete her ADSC, especially when AFPC had been  informed  of  a
position allowing her to complete her ADSC.  It is unclear to the  applicant
how a failure in medical school automatically makes her a failure as an  Air
Force officer and how, with her qualifications and desire  to  stay  in  the
military she is less qualified that those still being commissioned.

Her complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

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 thorough  review  of  the  available
evidence of record and the applicant's  submission,  we  are  not  persuaded
that relief of her indebtedness to the government is warranted.  We find  no
evidence of an error in this case and are not persuaded  by  her  assertions
that she has been the victim of an  injustice.   Her  contentions  are  duly
noted; however, it is our opinion that her debt was properly established  in
accordance with her contractual  agreement  and  the  governing  regulation,
which implement the law.  It appears that reasonable efforts  were  made  by
the  Air  Force  to  utilize  her  in  another  Air  Force  Specialty,   but
unfortunately the Air Force was unable to do so.  Therefore, we  agree  with
the opinions and  recommendations  of  the  Air  Force  offices  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.   In
the absence of persuasive 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 issues involved.   Therefore,  her  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-2005-
01868 in Executive Session on 13 Oct 05, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

      Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Panel Chair
      Ms. Dorothy P. Loeb, Member
      Ms. Jan Mulligan, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 6 Jun 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPAME, dated 14 Jun 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 19 Jul 05
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 Jul 05.
    Exhibit E.  Letter Applicant, dated 29 Jul 05, w/atchs.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Chair