RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-00764 

 COUNSEL: 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

1. His one additional year of active duty service commitment 
(ADSC) received as a student at the Uniformed Services 
University of Health Sciences (USUHS) be waived. 

 

2. His six-year ADSC he received for a civilian-sponsored 
neurosurgery residency training from 1994 to 2000 be removed. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He should not have to serve an additional year of ADSC because 
he served on active duty during an eight month period at USUHS, 
contemplating whether or not he was going to continue medical 
school. So, since he was not in a student status he should not 
be required to serve the additional year of the original seven-
year ADSC. 

 

After graduating from the United States Air Force Academy 
(USAFA), he attended USUHS expecting to graduate in 1992, with 
an agreed upon seven-year ADSC to run consecutively with his 
USAFA commitment. However; while it was his intention to serve 
20 years in the Air Force, at the end of his second year he 
experienced reservations about becoming a physician. After 
months of deliberations and numerous conversations, he decided 
to continue his third year of medical school. During this 
period he worked for the Department of Defense (DOD) Human 
Performance Laboratory as a lab assistant, not in student 
status. 

 

His six-year ADSC he incurred as a result of his civilian 
sponsored neurosurgery residency training be removed because at 
the time he was given a lot of misinformation about training 
status specifics (deferred vs. civilian sponsored) and the 
associated commitments. He felt pressured into signing the 
associated contracts for ADSC. 

 

Prior to completing his training at USUHS, he developed an 
interest in neurosurgery and during his last year, he pursued 
the specialty of neurosurgery. At that time, no prior USHUS 
graduate had chosen to pursue this critically needed Air Force 
Specialty Code (AFSC). Because this was unique, much of the 


information he was given about pursuing this residency program 
from Air Force and DOD superiors was incorrect. Since the Air 
Force did not offer a neurosurgery residency program, this led 
to him seeking support with the United States Navy (USN) and the 
US Army; however he was unsuccessful. He came to realize his 
only alternative to obtain neurosurgery residency training was 
with a civilian program, either in a deferred or sponsored 
status. Over the next 18 months, he believed that upon 
completion of residency program he would return to active duty 
and begin serving his remaining ADSC of 13 years. 

 

In Jan 93, he was able to find a spot in a residency program 
beginning in Jul 94, in a deferred status. Upon completion of 
medical school in 1993, he was transferred to Travis AFB CA for 
duty as a general surgery intern. He served at Travis from 1993 
to 1994. On 29 Jun 94, he was informed the Air Force had made a 
mistake and that his status would be changed to sponsored. This 
meant he would incur an additional six-year commitment upon his 
return to active duty. Since he was in the process of being 
discharged, he had two hours to sign and return the commitment 
papers or his discharge would be effective the next day. He did 
accept the contract and signed for the six-year ADSC, even 
though the Air Force did not incur any additional educational 
costs. 

 

In essence, he believes he has been treated differently than 
other similarly military trained residents. Further, he was not 
given the option to attend a military residency program even 
though the Air Force needed him to receive the training based on 
future manpower needs. As a result he is under a contract of 
adhesion that requires his continued service beyond any 
reasonable period of time. 

 

In support of his appeal, the applicant’s counsel provides a 
brief; his Fiscal Year 1988 (FY88) UHUHS Contract; FY88 
Statement of Understanding; Extension of Education Memorandum, 
dated 21 Dec 90; ADSC statements, and letters of support. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

Based on the available records and the Air Force office of 
primary responsibility (OPR), the applicant attended the USAFA 
from 1984 to 1988, for which he incurred a five-year ADSC. Upon 
graduation, he was commissioned as a second lieutenant and 
entered extended active duty, effective 1 Jun 88. The applicant 
was in leave status from 1 Jun 88 to 7 Aug 88, thereby 
fulfilling two months and seven days of his USAFA ADSC. 

 


The applicant entered the Armed Forces Health Professions 
Scholarship Program (AFHPSP) as a student at USUHS from 
22 Aug 88 to 15 May 93, which included a 1 year extension, 
incurring an eight year consecutive ADSC. He fulfilled one 
month and seven days of his USAFA ADSC, when he completed a 
residency orientation from 15 May 93 to 30 Jun 93. 

 

On 1 Jul 93, the applicant entered a general surgery internship 
at David Grant Medical Center until 30 Jun 94, neither incurring 
nor fulfilling any ADSC. 

 

The applicant was selected for a Neurosurgery training program 
in a redeferred (unfunded) status; however, the Air Force 
subsequently approved his training from redeferred to funded 
(civilian sponsored) on 30 Jun 94. On 1 Jul 94, he started 
training through 30 Jun 00, incurring a six-year consecutive 
ADSC. 

 

The applicant has an active duty service commitment date (ADSCD) 
of 5 Mar 19. 

 

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, 
extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained 
in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air 
Force. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPAME recommends denial stating, in part, the applicant was 
offered and accepted his training location preference of 
civilian sponsorship, received entitlements as a result of the 
sponsorship and received written acknowledgement of the 
associated ADSC’s. He could have declined the civilian 
sponsorship and remained unfunded for his neurosurgery residency 
and spine fellowship training from 1 Jul 94 to 30 Jun 00. 

 

The applicant incurred a five-year ADSC after graduating from 
the USAFA. He was selected for USUHS, from 1 Jul 88 – Jun 92, 
and submitted a request for a one-year extension, thereby 
delaying his graduation date from 1992 to the class of 1993. In 
accordance with his USUHS contract, he incurred an eight-year 
ADSC and acknowledged the additional ADSC on 8 Jan 91. The 
contract also stipulates that no portion of the ADSC may be 
fulfilled while in training status. The applicant was not 
removed from training at USUHS from 1988 – 1993. 

 

He claims the six - year ADSC should be waived because the 
opportunity to train at an active duty (Air Force, Navy, Army or 
Department of Defense (DOD) location) was not afforded to him. 
Annually, each service determines their training requirements 
based on service specific needs. The 1993 Graduate Medical 
Education (GME) Selection Board considered and selected four 


applicants for training in Neurosurgery beginning 1 Jul 94. The 
out brief indicated that the applicant would be approved for 
funded training pending man year availability. DOD recommends 
25 percent of the active duty workforce be in funded training. 
To comply with this recommendation, a limited number of funded 
man years are available each year. This was the case in 1993 
and is still the case today. 

 

Although, the applicant applied for civilian sponsorship, the 
1993 GME board selected him for redeferred training. However, 
it appears a last minute funding opportunity arose and the 
applicant made a quick decision and accepted the offer. The 
applicant could have remained unfunded with an approved 
separation date; however, he accepted the civilian sponsorship 
and processed the necessary administrative action to cancel his 
separation date. 

 

The complete AFPC/DPAME evaluation, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit C. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The applicant’s counsel explains had the applicant been required 
to repeat a year of medical school, he would have incurred an 
additional commitment. However, the applicant did not attend 
any additional courses nor underwent any additional periods of 
evaluation. Although the record may indicate he was not removed 
from training status, he did not receive any training during the 
period in question and thus should receive credit for the period 
of military service and should not have incurred an ADSC for 
additional training which was not received. 

 

The application for GME specifies that the applicant rank order 
his preferences for training, which was offered at both Army and 
Navy facilities; however, he was informed that he was not 
eligible to apply. No eligible programs were available in the 
Air Force, at the time; a policy and situation which are no 
longer true today. As a USHUS student, the applicant could not 
apply for “deferment.” During the 1993 GME, the Air Force was 
only offering training to future PGY1’s in a deferred status. 
The applicant was the first USUHS graduate to pursue 
neurosurgery, navigating a training pathway with varied 
bureaucratic constraints and receiving guidance from various 
sources. He had to complete the application and chose to mark 
PGY2/civilian sponsored which, given the information he had at 
the time, made the most sense. The applicant, in his position 
as consultant for neurosurgery for the Air Force for the past 
six years, has successfully set up Air Force training for 
residents in neurosurgery and has done everything possible to 
recruit by equating the commitment to that of other services and 
other Air Force training programs. 

 


DPAME cites three specific entitlements the applicant received 
as a result of sponsorship. 

 

1) Allowing the applicant to attend Northwestern. The Air Force 
originally approved a six year deferment for him to complete 
training to become a neurosurgeon. When the first program 
closed, had the Air Force recalled him after he completed only 
four of those six years he would have been of no more use to 
them than had he obtained no additional training after 
internship. It was in the Air Force’s best interest to allow 
him to continue his training at a new program, particularly in a 
specialty that was so important for wartime needs. This was a 
“win/win” situation for the Air Force and the applicant, 
orchestrated by the applicant, but approved by the Air Force. 

 

2) The cost for the move to the second school. Had the 
applicant not been sponsored, this expense would have fallen on 
the applicant. If this is a justification for incurring his 
ADSC, he will gladly reimburse the Air Force for the cost of 
shipment of his household goods for a six year ADSC, which bars 
him from pursuing additional bonuses and benefits later in his 
career. 

 

3) The applicant would have received at least pay and 
entitlements with or without the Air Force. In fact, he had to 
pay for benefits that he would have received without Air Force 
sponsorship. The residency training came at no cost to the 
government. If he had been given the opportunity to train at a 
military medical training facility (MTF), he would have received 
better benefits without incurring an ADSC, such as full health 
coverage. 

 

The Air Force wanted to send the applicant, a USUHS graduate, to 
neurosurgery training without presenting him the same options 
available to other USUHS graduates. Through no fault of his 
own, the applicant was literally boxed in a contractual 
arrangement that extended his service commitment at no real 
additional cost to the Air Force when compared to other 
residency programs. The passage of time and hindsight has 
exposed these inequities of this contractual obligation. 

 

The counsel’s complete response 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. 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 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 addition, 
while we understand the applicant believes the commitments 
resulting from his additional time at USUHS and his neurosurgery 
training should not be included as ADSC, based on the available 
evidence of record, it appears the applicant understood the 
active duty service commitments associated with the training he 
received, agreed to, and signed the commitment contracts. 
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find 
no 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. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably 
considered. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 

 

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the 
application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2010-00764 in Executive Session on 2 November 2010, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 17 Jan 10, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPAME, dated 8 Apr 10, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Jun 10. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, Counsel, dated 3 Jul 10. 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair