Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02261
Original file (BC-2011-02261.txt) Auto-classification: Approved
 

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02261 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His retirement date be changed to 1 Oct 10 and recoupment of his 
debt of $57,000.00 be stopped. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He was notified on 3 Sep 10 that he had been retired effective 
31 Jul 10. He had an active duty service commitment date 
(ADSCD) of Jul 12 as a result of signing a Multi-Year Incentive 
Special Pay agreement. 

 

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a copy of his 
retirement order, Special Order AC-011481, dated 3 Sep 10; his 
DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active 
Duty, issued in conjunction with his 31 Jul 10 retirement, and 
email correspondence. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant signed special pay contracts on 7 Oct 05 and 
18 Jul 07, which obligated him to 29 Jun 13. His Date of 
Separation (DOS) was incorrectly listed in the military 
personnel data system (MILPDS) when the contracts were 
processed. 

 

Title 10, United States Code (USC) mandates that lieutenant 
colonels retire at 28 years of total active commissioned 
service; as a result, the applicant did not have retainability 
for the ADSC he incurred through the medical special pay 
contracts. Upon notification of his retired status, AFPC/DPAMF 
initiated a package to recall the applicant to active duty from 
retirement. While his package was being expedited the applicant 
willingly volunteered his services (without pay) to help 
mitigate the shortage of surgeons imposed by his retirement. 


Although, the recall package was approved his Critical Skills 
Retention Bonus was never authorized. 

 

The applicant was considered and nonselected for promotion to 
colonel nine-times and he was not selected for continuation. 

 

The applicant was relieved from active duty, effective 
31 Jul 10, based on maximum service and retired 1 Aug 10 in the 
grade of lieutenant colonel. He was credited with 28 years and 
27 days of service for retirement. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPAMF2 recommends changing the applicant's retirement date 
to 1 Oct 10 to reflect his active service and volunteer service 
through this period and ensure that he is eligible for the 
normal liability coverage afforded to active duty surgeons. In 
addition, they recommend that the Defense Finance and Accounting 
Service (DFAS) cease action to recoup unearned portions of the 
applicant's medical special pay. 

 

The complete AFPC/DPAMF2 evaluation, with attachment, is at 
Exhibit C. 

 

AFPC/DPSOR recommends for the time the applicant continued to 
treat patients after his 31 Jul 10 mandatory separation date 
(MSD), that he be retired effective 1 Oct 10 to cover any 
existing or future medical liability for having continued to 
treat patients past his 31 Jul 10 MSD. They have no 
recommendation concerning the applicant’s medical specialty pay 
recoupment except to recognize that the AF offered the applicant 
a SPTC to accept the special pays and erroneously changed the 
DOS from the valid 31 Jul 10 MSD to 29 Jun 13 to match the 
medical specialty pay ADSCs. 

 

Public Law 108-375, 28 Oct 04, Section 501, Transition of 
active-duty list officer force to a force of all Regular 
officers, specified all officers on the active duty list (ADL) 
be Regular officers by 1 May 05 (AFI 36-2006, Oath of Office 
(Military Personnel) and Certificate of Commission, 
incorporating Change 1, dated 12 Oct 2006). Until this law went 
into effect, the applicant was a Reserve officer and agreed to 
serve under special period of time contracts (SPTCs) in exchange 
for medical special pays. After the transition to the all-
Regular force, the AF erroneously continued to offer SPTCs to 
Regular medical officers and changed their DOS to match the ADSC 
that accompanied the SPTC. The AF changed the applicant's MSD 
from 31 Ju1 10, required by 10 USC Section 633, to 29 Jun 13, a 
year after his 28 Jun 12 multi-year specialty pay ADSC. The 
applicant also had a 30 Sep 11 incentive special pay and a 
30 Jun 11 additional special pay ADSC. 

 


The AFPC/DPOSR evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

DFAF-IN recommends the applicant’s separation date and code be 
changed to authorize non recoupment of bonus monies paid. 

 

They note the applicant separated from the Air Force on 
31 Jul 10 due to retirement. The member served as a general 
surgeon until 3 Sep 10, to include work with surgical patients. 
His Master Military Pay Account (MMPA) was posted with a 
discharge date of July on 26 Oct 10. This retirement was back 
dated due to an error in MILPDS. Although DPAMF recommends not 
recouping the unearned portion of the member's medical special 
pay this debt has been posted to Defense Debt Management System 
(DDMS). 

 

The complete DFAS-IN evaluation is at Exhibit E. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

Copies of the evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 
16 Sep 11 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this 
date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit F). 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

 

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

 

2. The application was timely filed. 

 

3. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of error or injustice warranting 
corrective action. The Air Force offices of primary 
responsibility and the Defense Finance and Accounting Service 
have adequately addressed the issues presented by the applicant 
and we are in agreement with their opinions and recommendation. 
As such, we find that the applicant erroneously performed duty 
beyond his official MSD due to no fault of his own. We note the 
Air Force erroneously extended the applicant’s ADSC as a result 
of an unauthorized specified period of time contract, leading 
the applicant to believe he was authorized to perform the 
assigned duties and that he would receive medical special pays. 
We believe the applicant’s retroactive retirement and the debt 
he has incurred constitutes an injustice and agrees with the Air 
Force OPRs and DFAS that relief is warranted. Therefore, in the 
interest of equity and justice, we recommend the applicant’s 
records be corrected as indicated below. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 


THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: 

 

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air 
Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that: 

 

 a. On 31 July 2010, he was continued by competent authority 
pursuant to Title 10, United States Code, Section 637(b), 
thereby establishing a new Mandatory Separation Date of 
30 September 2010. 

 

 b. He was not discharged from the Air Force on 31 July 2010 
and retired for length of service on 1 August 2010, but was 
continued on active duty, and eligible for all rights, 
privileges, and liability coverage afforded to all Air Force 
surgeons, until 30 September 2010, at which time he was 
discharged and retired on 1 October 2010. 

 

 c. His Narrative Reason for Separation was changed to 
“Mandatory Retirement: Maximum Service or Time in Grade,” with 
the corresponding Separation Program Designator (SPD) of “SBC” 
rather than “Voluntary Retirement: Maximum Service or Time in 
Grade,” with the corresponding Separation Program Designator of 
“RBC.” 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2011-02261 in Executive Session on 8 March 2012, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The 
following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated. 11 Jun 10, w/atchs 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPAMF2, dated 22 Jul 11, w/atch. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 1 Aug 11. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, DFAS-IN, undated. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 Sep 11. 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair 



Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-01263

    Original file (BC-2002-01263.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant's OER/OPR profile, commencing with the report closing 25 May 86 follows: Period Ending Evaluation (2Lt) 25 May 86 1-1-1 25 Nov 86 2-2-2 (Referral Report) 24 Apr 87 1-1-1 24 Oct 87 1-1-1 (1Lt) 24 Apr 88 1-1-1 12 Jun 89 Meets Standards (Capt) 12 Jun 90 Meets Standards On 17 Oct 90, the applicant was released from active duty under the provisions of AFR 36-12 (Involuntary Release: Disapproved Request for Extension of Tour) and transferred to the Air Force Reserve. The relevant facts...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1998 | 9503636

    Original file (9503636.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    By accepting the ASP payment, the member incurs an active duty service commitment (ADSC) to remain on active duty for one year from the date payment is received. DPAMFl stated that if the applicant would have signed his initial ASP agreement, instead of the declination statement, this would have been evidence of his intent to remain on active duty for the given period of time regardless of the outcome of his hospitalization. JA also noted that, during his active duty time in 1992,...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2001-00295

    Original file (BC-2001-00295.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant’s rebuttal, with attachments, is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, General Law Division, HQ USAF/JAG, noted that Section 2005 provides for recoupment if a member fails to complete the ADSC voluntarily or due to misconduct. On 14 Aug 01, DFAS-POCC/DE advised the applicant that, based on her placement on the TDRL, it was inappropriate at this time to recoup monies which might not be owed if...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0002824

    Original file (0002824.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Counsel’s request with the AFBCMR response is at Exhibit F. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: By letter dated 15 June 2001, counsel advised that the applicant was ready to proceed and submitted additional materials for consideration. On 13 July 2001, counsel was notified by the AFBCMR that an additional advisory opinion was required prior to presenting the case to the Board for a decision (Exhibit H). By letter...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 01570

    Original file (BC 2013 01570.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letters prepared by DFAS and the Air Force offices of primary responsibility, which are attached at Exhibits C, D, and E. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: DFAS recommends relief be granted, indicating that there are competing statutes and implementing directives which prevented the applicant from fulfilling her five-year ADSC. By law, the applicant had to...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01681

    Original file (BC-2003-01681.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    In a 4 Feb 00 appeal, he requested SSB consideration for the Fiscal Year 2000 (FY00) Air Force Reserve Colonel Promotion Selection Board, which convened on 18 Oct 99, and any subsequent Reserve Colonel Promotion Board for which he was not considered. For an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s previous appeal and the rationale of the earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings at Exhibit C. On 15 Jun 01, the applicant was notified that he...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-01276

    Original file (BC-2002-01276.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    AFPC/DPAMF2 noted that the applicant further cited a fifty-seven year old accession that he is aware of who had completed two years of active duty, separated, and was to return as a lieutenant colonel in Fiscal Year 2002 (FY02). A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPPOC evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D. AFPC/DPPRRP reviewed this application and indicated that the United States Code (USC), Title 10, Section 8911, provides that the Secretary of the Air Force may, upon the officer’s...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-05069

    Original file (BC-2011-05069.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-05069 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His debt to the government in the amount of $9,308.39 be waived. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: An unjust debt was levied upon him for recoupment of a pro-rata share of the scholarship he...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02306

    Original file (BC-2004-02306.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He should still be eligible for his ACP since he transferred to a full time position with the Air National Guard (ANG) and will be performing the same duties that qualified him for ACP on active duty. They point out that paragraph 2.2, “Recoupment,” states officers will be advised that if the SecAF approves their request for release from active duty or accepts their resignations, they may be subject...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0102043

    Original file (0102043.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant’s initial USUHS contract would govern any ADSC associated with educational programs regardless of the time he actually enters training. DPAME also noted that current and past regulatory guidance is that obligation for civilian sponsorship is always served consecutively to any pre-existing ADSC. Actually, the regulation he was provided did indicate a consecutive obligation for civilian sponsored training, although his ADSC is governed by the language in his contract.