RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-04064 

 COUNSEL: 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His rank be changed from second lieutenant (2Lt) to first 
lieutenant (1Lt) and he be awarded all associated back pay and 
allowances. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

1. On 13 Apr 10, he was disenrolled from the Uniformed Services 
University of the Health Sciences (USUHS). His length of 
service was approximately two years from his date of rank (DOR) 
of 30 Jun 08 and he continued to work within the Uniformed 
Service University Brigade. 

 

2. Based on prior BCMR rulings, he should have been eligible for 
the Special Selection Board (SSB) on 6 Sep 10, at which time his 
rank would have changed from 2Lt to 1Lt, respectively. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

On 30 Jun 08, the applicant entered the USUHS in the grade of 
2Lt. 

 

On 13 Apr 10, he was disenrolled from the program for academic 
reasons. As a result of his disenrollment, the applicant’s 
seven year contractual obligation changed to two years (minimum 
service obligation/MSO) for his USUHS sponsorship from 
27 Jun 08 to 13 Apr 10 (effective date of disenrollment). 
AFPC/DPAME began the process to transfer the applicant to the 
Medical Service Corps (MSC), Biomedical Sciences Corps (BSC) and 
the Line of the Air Force (LAF). However, it was determined he 
would not be able to serve on active duty in another capacity to 
fulfill his MSO. 

 

A command directed separation action was initiated. 
On 22 Feb 12, the applicant was honorably discharged. 

 


The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of 
the Air Force, which is attached at Exhibit C and F. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPAME recommends denial of the applicant’s request for 
promotion to 1Lt. In addition, DPAME recommends the Secretary 
of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) direct discharge and 
recoupment of the remaining educational active duty service 
commitment (ADSC). The applicant is fulfilling active duty 
service obligation from the date of disenrollment. However, he 
was not accepted in another Air Force career to fulfill the 
educational ADSC incurred through the USUHS sponsorship. 

 

Accession as a regular officer is the main reason the applicant 
is still on active duty. 

 

DPAME states the applicant is correct, there were prior BCMR 
rulings adjusting the DOR for officers disenrolled from the 
USUHS. However, those officers were accepted into another 
active duty career field to serve their educational ADSC. 
Unfortunately, this is not the case for the applicant. 

 

The applicant should not be afforded the opportunity to compete 
for promotion against an officer in another career field who 
will remain on active duty as a MSC officer. 

 

The complete DPAME evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The applicant states the AFPC/DPAME advisory concluded that 
relief should not be granted because he was not accepted into 
another career field to serve the additional ADSC in another 
capacity. However, this conclusion is unsupportable, as there 
is no statue or regulation which allows for such a distinction. 

 

The applicant states upon disenrollment he was entitled to 
promotion consideration. 

 

In further support of his appeal the applicant provides a 
personal statement, copies of AFBCMR ROPs, emails, and various 
other documents in support of his request. 

 

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit E. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 


ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AF/JAA makes no recommendation. 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. However, if a disenrolled officer receives an 
original appointment to another competitive category, USUHS 
service is creditable as prior-commissioned service for entry-
grade consideration. 

 

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: 

 

By letter, dated 20 Mar 13, the applicant through his attorney 
states he received a de facto appointment to the MSC as 
evidenced by his OPRs for the period in question. Therefore, 
equity suggests that credit for promotion purposes should be 
given. 

 

In further support of his appeal, the applicant provided a one-
page legal brief. 

 

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit H. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 he 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 his assertion that he 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 Active Duty Service Commitments. 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 his continued service until his 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 
14 Apr 10, he remained assigned to USUHS on active duty in a 
student status until such time as he was either discharged or 
transferred to another competitive category. During this period 
he performed administrative duties as an assistant to the 
Brigade Command pending his command-directed separation and 
appeal of the separation action. However, he was not 
transferred to another competitive category and never placed on 
the ADL, as it was determined his accession was not appropriate, 
since he would not be able to serve on active duty in another 
capacity to fulfill his Military Service Obligation (MSO). The 
applicant has provided no evidence to indicate the determination 
that he could not fulfill his MSO in another active duty career 
field was in error. As such, we find no evidence of an error in 
this case. 

 

4. We have also considered whether matters of equity require 
the record be disturbed. In this regard, we find that while 
disenrolled USUHS students should not be retained awaiting 
reassignment or separation for an extended time and concede the 
applicant was retained for almost two years following his 
disenrollment, we do not find this shocks our sense of justice, 
as this service was creditable towards fulfillment of the cost 
associated with his USUHS-sponsored education, i.e., $71,475.00; 
thereby, reducing the amount to be recouped to $42,885.28 and 
provided him an opportunity to appeal the separation action. 
Therefore, in view of the above and in the absence of 
substantial evidence to the contrary, we find the applicant has 
not met his burden of establishing the existence of an error or 
an injustice in his record to warrant favorable consideration of 
the requested relief. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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-2011-04064 in Executive Session on 19 Mar and 26 Mar 
13, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 Panel Chair 

Member 

 Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 14 Oct 11, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Record. 

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

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

 Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 13 Dec 11, 

 w/atchs. 

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

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair