RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-00906 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

1. Section One: By amendment at Exhibit F, his Air Force Academy 
(AFA) recoupment principal of 3,499.17 be reduced. 

 

1. Section Two: By amendment at Exhibit F, his debt of $4,326.77 
(principal and interest) to the Uniformed Services University of 
the Health Sciences (USUHS) be removed. 

 

2. Section Three: By amendment at Exhibit F, his debt of 
$2,057.71 (medical facility costs) to the United States Air Force 
Academy (USAFA) be removed. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

1. Section One: The original debt was $173,191.00; however, his 
active duty service reduced the recoupment principal to $127, 
853.88. In Feb 02, he received a promissory note for $127,853.88 
which was assessed interest at the Federal statutory rate. He 
continues to make payments to reduce his indebtedness, but the 
remaining balance is approximately $56,195.00. The amounts in 
dispute are not significant amounts of money for the government, 
but they are significant amounts for him. 

 

2. Section Two: He wishes the two debts (AFA and USUHS) to be 
considered separately. He believes that it is possible for the 
USUHS principal reduction request to be granted, even if the 
USAFA principal reduction request is not. 

 

3. Section Three: The $2,729.96 (this amount has changed due to 
passage of time and payments being made) portion of debt does not 
relate to any costs paid by the government and is not recoupable 
under Title 10, Section 2005, USC. The cost represents a third-
year medical education costs; however, he never entered the third 
year of training in USUHS’s medical education program. The 
$5,313.74 portion of debt corresponds to pro-rata Academy medical 
facility costs; however, he is asking for the costs to be 
considered an entitlement under 10 USC 1074. 

 

4. He completed 4-years at the USAFA and 2-years at the USUHS. 
On 1 Jun 99, he disclosed to the USUHS that he attended law 


school part-time while enrolled in medical school. He apologized 
for the omission and withdrew from law school. On 30 Aug 99, he 
was recommended for disenrollment from USUHS by a Student 
Promotions Committee for not disclosing his law school 
attendance. He subsequently resigned from USUHS and worked as a 
program analyst and an executive officer at Bolling AFB until he 
was administratively discharged from the Air Force. 

 

5. He discovered the injustice through making various Freedom of 
Information Act (FOIA) requests, phone, and e-mail communications 
with USUHS and USAFA from 2002 to 2009. He did not realize the 
AFBCMR resource was available and he does not dispute any facts 
between him and government. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides a nine page 
personal statement and several documents with regard to his debt 
to support of his request. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant entered into the Regular Air Force on 31 Aug 99 in 
the grade of second lieutenant (0-1). He completed 4-years at 
the USAFA and 2-years in medical school at USUHS. After 
disclosing that he attended a part-time law school he was 
recommended for disenrollment from USUHS. The Secretary of the 
Air Force Personnel Council directed the applicant be honorably 
discharged pursuant to AFI 36-3207. It was determined that he 
was required to reimburse the United States Government for the 
pro-rata share of his AFACA and for his USUHS education IAW 
Section 2005 of Title 10 USC. 

 

The applicant was discharged on 18 Jun 01 after serving 1 year, 
9 months, and 18 days on active duty. 

 

On 9 Mar 12, the applicant requested to administratively close 
his case for 30 days. On 11 May 12, the applicant requested that 
his case be reopened. He provided attachments to the e-mail in 
response to the USUHS and USAFA evaluations. 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

HQ USAFA/JA recommends denial. The Department of Defense 
Directive 1332.23 states that the service academies will develop 
joint procedures to establish their Cost Per Graduate (CPG) and 
Cost of Education (COR) figures. In this case, the applicant 
requests his principal amount be reduced by $5,313.74 because the 
cost is for medical facilities and he believes this is an 
entitlement rather than educational costs. Medical facilities 


are included in the calculation of the CPG and COE. The 
applicant signed an O-205 Oath of Allegiance on the day he 
entered the Academy with the understanding that he would graduate 
and serve his required time as an officer in the United States 
Air Force or reimburse the government for the cost of his Academy 
education. The disputed amount is part of the overall CPG/COE 
for his particular Class Year; therefore, JA believes the debt 
and the amount directed is valid and should not be reduced. 

 

The complete HQ USAFA/JA evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

USUHS states that the assessed charge is based on enrollment, not 
attendance, which is a normal practice among U.S. academic 
institutions. 

 

The complete USUHS evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

In a 12-page brief, the applicant makes the following key 
contentions in his rebuttal: 

 

1. Section One: He would like a reduction in the amount 
that he owes to the USAFA because this amount was erroneously 
included in the recoupment principal, which was made in error by 
the Air Force back in February 2003. His total active duty 
service obligation (ADSO) was a total of 2,561 days. After 
subtracting the active duty days served (731 days) and when 
correctly calculated his corresponding reduction in recoupment is 
$48,960.00. 

 

2. Section Two: He would like his third-year medical 
student educational costs to be removed from his recoupment 
principal balance. This portion of his debt does not relate to 
any costs borne by the government, and is not recoupable under 
Title 10, Section 2005, U.S.C. He was enrolled at USUHS from 
1 Jul 99 to 30 Aug 99; however, he remained enrolled only to 
testify in an administrative hearing. He did not receive any 
training or education during that period of time. 

 

3. Section Three: He would like for the $2,057.71 
recoupment principal to be considered a medical and dental 
entitlement and removed from his debt. Further, he notes the 
USAFA/JA advisory opinion that suggests the Academy “reviews each 
case on its own merits and directs accordingly on a case by case 
basis”; however, such review may violate the equal protection 
clause of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. Further, the 
Academy does not deny that the recoupment costs assessed to him 


are considerably higher than the costs assessed to other former 
Academy graduates. 

 

He is not attempting to disavow his payment obligation to the 
government and his request will lead to a very modest 5.2 percent 
reduction in his correctly calculated recoupment principal. 
However, the reduction of 5.2 percent in his recoupment principal 
will be significant to him. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

 

1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 
law or regulations. 

 

2. The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the 
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file. 

 

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 relief of his indebtedness 
to the government is warranted. We find no evidence of an error 
in this case and are not persuaded by his assertions that he has 
been the victim of an injustice. His contentions are duly noted; 
however, it is our opinion that his debt was properly established 
in accordance with his contractual agreement and the governing 
regulation, which implements the law. Therefore, we agree with 
the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary 
responsibility and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for 
our decision that the applicant has not been the victim of an 
error or an injustice. Therefore, in the absence of persuasive 
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 issues involved. 
Therefore, the 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-2011-00906 in Executive Session on 11 Sep 12, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 21 Feb 11, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, USAFA/JA, dated 1 Feb 12. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, USUHS, dated 3 Feb 12. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Feb 12. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 10 May 12, w/atchs. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair