RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-04047 

 COUNSEL: 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

She be promoted to the grade of first lieutenant with back pay. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

On 25 Jun 10, she was disenrolled from the School of Medicine at 
the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (USUHS). 
At that time, she was approximately two years from her date of 
rank of 30 Jun 08. She continued to work at USUHS. She should 
have met and been promoted by the Special Selection Board (SSB) 
which convened on 6 Sep 10. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

On 29 May 08, the applicant entered active duty service as a 
USUHS student. On 25 Jun 10, the applicant resigned from 
training and disenrolled from the USUHS. On 16 Jul 10, HQ 
AFPC/DPAME received notification of the applicant’s disenrollment 
from the USUHS for academic reasons. 

 

Officers entering the USUHS are accessed as second lieutenants in 
the Medical Service Corps (MSCs) with a regular appointment. 
Upon completing medical degree requirements they are reappointed 
as captains in the MSCs; their regular commission remains 
unchanged. 

 

Due to her disenrollment, the applicant’s seven-year contractual 
obligation changed to a two years minimum service obligation 
(MSO) for USUHS sponsorship from 1 Aug 08 to 25 Jun 10 (effective 
date of disenrollment). DPAME began the staffing process to the 
MSCs, Biomedical Sciences Corps (BSCs) and Line of the Air Force 
(LAF); however, it was determined the applicant would not be able 
to serve on active duty in another capacity to fulfill the MSO. 
On 12 Jan 11, a voluntary separation action was initiated by the 
applicant and was subsequently withdrawn. 

 


A command-directed separation action was initiated due to the 
applicant’s withdrawal of the voluntary separation request. She 
appealed the decision to separate. Her appeal was denied. 

 

On 22 Feb 12, the applicant was honorably discharged from service 
for unsatisfactory performance. She was issued a separation 
program code of GHJ (Involuntary discharge recommended by 
board/failed to properly discharge assigned duties). She served 
3 years, 8 months and 24 days on active duty. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

HQ AFPC/DPAME recommends denial. DPAME states the applicant will 
remain a student until separation action is approved. Although 
she fulfilled her active duty service obligation from the date of 
disenrollment, she was not accepted into another Air Force career 
field to fulfill the educational Active Duty Service Commitment 
(ADSC) incurred through the USUHS sponsorship. 

 

DPAME notes the applicant is correct in regards to prior rulings 
by the AFBCMR adjusting the DOR for officers disenrolled from the 
USHUS; however, the officers in question were accepted into 
another active duty career field to serve their educational ADSC, 
unlike the applicant. 

 

DPAME notes the applicant was academically disenrolled from the 
USHUS. She incurred a two-year MSO for her USUHS sponsorship. 
She was staffed to the MSC and BSC. However, she was not 
accepted and therefore unable to fulfill her educational ADSC in 
another active duty capacity. By law, USUHS students are 
accessed as regular officers. Their status remains unchanged 
from the effective date of disenrollment until such time as the 
separation action is approved. The applicant fulfilled her MSO 
until discharged. She should not be afforded the opportunity to 
compete for promotion against an officer in another career field 
who will remain on active duty. 

 

The complete DPAME evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The applicant’s counsel states the comments provided by the Air 
Force office of primary responsibility are insupportable as there 
is no statute or regulation which allows for such distinction. 
He refers the Board to docket number 96-01097 previously decided 
by the Board for a complete analysis of this point. 

 

The counsel’s complete response is at Exhibit E. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 


 

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

USAF/JAA states officer students at USUHS are not included on the 
Active Duty List (ADL) because they are excluded from all 
statutory provisions in Chapter 36 of Title 10. As such, USUHS 
service is not creditable under 10 U.S.C. Section 619(a) for 
time-in-grade consideration upon disenrollment. 

 

JAA notes officers entering medical training at USUHS are 
accessed under the program’s statutory authorization in Chapter 
104 of Title 10. If a student is disenrolled prior to 
graduation, his or her personnel status does not change when 
removed from the program. Rather, disenrolled students are 
considered for new positions in other competitive categories or 
processed for administrative separation if no suitable positions 
are available. During this assessment and transition, the 
personnel status of disenrolled officers does not change and they 
continue to service according to the statutory framework. As 
such, the service of disenrolled officers’ remains statutorily 
excluded from Chapter 36 of Title 10 provisions until they are 
reappointed or administratively separated from active duty. 

 

USUHS does not assign disenrolled officers to the ADL principally 
because USUHS does not maintain manpower positions or billets 
into which disenrolled officers may be assigned. By law, USUHS 
students are not accounted for on the ADL and transitioning a 
disenrolled officer to a billet on the ADL would require a 
manpower authorization and position to which the officer could be 
assigned. Without such authorizations, USUHS cannot transition 
disenrolled officers to the ADL. 

 

JAA states requiring disenrolled officers to continue to work in 
an administrative capacity for a limited period while their case 
is resolved is appropriate; however, it is important to recognize 
that the officers are being processed out of the organization, 
not serving as members of the USUHS staff. Disenrolled officers 
should not be retained for lengthy terms after they are 
disenrolled and appointing them to an interim status is not 
necessary so long as their transition out of the program is 
executed quickly and managed effectively. 

 

The complete JAA evaluation is at Exhibit F. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 


APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF THE ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

On 18 Mar 13, applicant’s counsel requested the case be withdrawn 
and administratively closed until a response to the JAA advisory 
could be provided. 

 

On 20 Mar 13, he reopened the case and stated that, in his view, 
the applicant did receive a defacto appointment to the MSC as 
evidenced by her OPRs for the period in question. He believes 
equity suggests credit for promotion be given. 

 

The counsel’s complete response is at Exhibit I. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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. The applicant contends 
that she should be eligible for promotion consideration by a 
Special Selection Board based on precedent that has been 
established in similar cases decided by this Board in BC-1996-
01097 and the Army Board for Correction of Military Records 
(ABCMR) in AR20090011111 and AR20100025905. We disagree. In 
this respect, we have reviewed the cases cited by the applicant 
and are not persuaded they support her assertion that she has 
been the victim of an error or an injustice. In the cited cases, 
unlike the applicant, the USUHS disenrollees were transferred to 
other competitive categories to fulfill their educational ADSCs. 
Moreover, in BC-1996-01097, the decision of the Board was founded 
upon the erroneous advice provided by AFPC/JA, who opined, based 
on their incorrect interpretation of the governing statute, that 
although USUHS student service could not be credited for basic 
pay calculations under 10 USC § 2126, it could be credited for 
date of rank and promotion eligibility purposes, since it was not 
specifically precluded by statute. We also note the decisions 
reached in the two cited ABCMR cases are not founded upon 
additional distinctive and independent findings, but rather a 
consequence of this Board’s decision in BC-1996-01097 and the 
underlying inaccurate statutory interpretation. The applicant’s 
contentions regarding her continued service until her separation 
are noted; however, in accordance with the governing statutes, 
students participating in the USUHS program serve on active duty, 
but are not on the active duty list (ADL); are excluded from 
earning credit for promotion, separation, and retirement and; 
service performed while a member of the program is not to be 
counted in determining eligibility for retirement other than by 
reason of physical disability incurred while on active duty as a 


member of the program or in computing years of service credible 
under 37 U.S.C. § 205. This is further sustained in the 
governing DoD Financial Management Regulation that precludes the 
period a student is at USUHS from being credible towards pay. 
Although the applicant was eliminated from medical school on 
25 Jun 10, she remained assigned to USUHS on active duty in a 
student status until such time as she was discharged. During 
this period, she performed administrative duties as a continuing 
health education activity manager. She applied for separation 
which she later withdrew. Subsequently a command-directed 
separation was initiated. During the time in question, she was 
not transferred to another competitive category and was never 
placed on the ADL, as it was determined her accession was not 
appropriate, since she would not be able to serve on active duty 
in another capacity to fulfill her MSO. The applicant has 
provided no evidence to indicate the determination that she could 
not fulfill her MSO in another active duty career field was in 
error. As such, we find no evidence of an error in this case. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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-2011-04047 in Executive Session on 28 Mar 13, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 


The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC-
2011-04047: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 14 Jan 11, w/atch. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPAME, dated 14 Nov 11. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Dec 11. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, Counsel, dated 10 Dec 11. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, USAF/JAA, dated 5 Feb 13. 

 Exhibit G. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 14 Feb 13. 

 Exhibit H. Letter, Counsel, dated 18 Mar 13. 

 Exhibit I. Letter, Counsel, dated 20 Mar 13. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair