RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03641
		COUNSEL: 
		HEARING DESIRED: YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  He be retroactively granted a sponsorship under the Armed 
Forces Health Professions Scholarship Program (AFHPSP).

2.  He be reimbursed for expenses incurred in excess of 
$80,000 during his first year of medical school.

3.  His original enlistment contract be changed from “Line 
Officer” to “Health Professions.”

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The applicant through counsel submits a four-page legal brief 
with attachments with the following major contentions:  

In 2009, he completed Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps 
(AFROTC) field training and signed a contract under the belief 
he was guaranteed a scholarship for medical school under the 
AFHPSP.  His commanding officer, including the ROTC staff 
believed he was “guaranteed” the scholarship under the AFHPSP.  

Subsequently, he was denied the scholarship and granted an 
educational delay for medical school; however, he was 
responsible for funding any educational costs in excess of 
$300,000, and then required to complete an active duty service 
commitment (ADSC) with the Air Force.

Due to procedural errors to no fault of his own, he faces a 
substantial debt and an ADSC to the Air Force due to an 
inequitable denial of his HPSP scholarship.

A constructive contract exists between him and the Air Force for 
a scholarship under the AFHPSP.  He still owes an obligation to 
the Air Force.  He will have to request an educational delay 
each year, as well as expend over $80,000 a year for medical 
school, only for the Air Force to reap the benefit of his 
medical education. 

He is the President of the Association of Military Osteopathic 
Physicians and Surgeons (AMOPS) at his medical school.  The 
organization consists of students that were awarded the very 
scholarship he has applied for, in most cases, with little to no 
military experience and inferior academic credentials.

He was not aware at the time that signing the contract (which 
actually classified him as a line officer) would prevent him 
from obtaining the scholarship.  There is a specific clause in 
his contract that states if accepted into medical school before 
commissioning, he would be guaranteed a Health Professions 
Scholarship.  He thought he was pre-health and after seeing this 
specific clause, he signed the contract without hesitation.

It was not until he was accepted into medical school that he was 
informed he was not classified as pre-health.  

During the process, he found out that instead of commissioning 
into the HPSP program, he was being placed on educational delay.  
When he asked the cadre about this discrepancy, he was told he 
was not properly classified as pre-health and instead was going 
to be placed on an educational delay.  This was the first time 
he heard he had been misclassified.  He was distraught over the 
news and asked his cadre what his options were.  He was told he 
would need to take out loans for his first year and then apply 
for a three-year scholarship the next year.

His detachment staff thought he was pre-health and was entitled 
to the scholarship.  They submitted letters supporting his 
contentions.  This whole issue revolves around him not having 
the proper classification in the eyes of the Air Force

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 7 Aug 11, the applicant was appointed a second lieutenant in 
the United States Air Force Reserves (USAFR).

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of 
the Air Force, which are contained at Exhibits C and D.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPANE recommends denial.  DPANE states that the applicant 
met the 3 Apr 12, HPSP scholarship selection board for a three-
year HPSP scholarship and was non-selected.  Upon his own free 
will, he decided to apply for an Air Force Institute of 
Technology (AFIT) Educational Delay from entering the Line of 
the Air Force (LAF) to attend medical school at his own expense 
and was granted approval.  

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

AFPC/JA recommends denial.  JA states that the claim by the 
applicant that he was misled into believing the AFROTC contract 
guaranteed him a scholarship for medical school – or, 
alternatively, that a constructive contract to that effect 
existed – is simply not supported by the evidence of record.  
The statement by his AFROTC commander, and the (incorrect) 
AFROTC documents signed by that commander supporting the 
applicant’s position, do nothing more than evidence a mistaken 
belief by both parties that is rebutted by the denial of Pre-
Health Professions Program (Pre-HPP) status and the terms of the 
AFROTC contract.  An implied or “constructive” contract does not 
exist simply because a party believes it, or wants it to be 
true, where the facts of record clearly provide otherwise.  The 
applicant simply had no reasonable basis to believe he was 
entitled to an HPSP scholarship.  

As noted by AFPC/DPANE, upon graduation from college, the 
applicant applied for an educational delay to attend medical 
school at his own expense – an option not available to a Pre-HPP 
designee in accordance with (IAW) AFROTCI 36-2011, Cadet 
Operations.  This was his decision that was never accompanied by 
any promise, implied or expressed by the Air Force to pay for or 
reimburse the cost.  The applicant applied for an HPSP 
scholarship and it was denied.  

JA states that the applicant has presented no evidence of error; 
the entire sequence of events does not evidence the Air Force 
ever guaranteed the applicant that it would fund his medical 
education.  

Further, JA states that the applicant has not established an 
injustice.  In the face of the ROTC contract, his denial of Pre-
HPP status, his request for an educational delay to go ahead and 
pursue medical school anyway (at his own expense), and his 
receiving denial to a subsequent application for a scholarship, 
does not logically follow that the government should owe him the 
cost of a medical education that (1) the Air Force did not 
require him to pursue, and (2) he elected to pay for himself 
with no reasonable expectation of reimbursement.  There is no 
injustice for either the applicant’s mistaken beliefs or his 
decision to pursue medical school despite clear evidence that 
the government was not going to fund or reimburse that 
education.

The complete JA evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant’s counsel states that the applicant had a 
reasonable belief he had fulfilled all of his obligations to be 
selected for the HPSP.  There was absolutely no failure on the 
part of the applicant.  The failure was in his chain of command, 
which has been acknowledged on every level, including a 
statement received from a senior noncommissioned officer (SNCO) 
who had been with the command for almost 10 years.  The 
applicant’s belief was based on the direction of his chain of 
command.  The same chain of command that led the applicant to 
believe he was in the HPSP and subsequently “guaranteed” him the 
scholarship, only to be denied given the grave administration 
errors and mishandling of his application.

Counsel asserts that the only reason the applicant subsequently 
applied for the educational delay and the three-year program, 
was because his chain of command directed him to do so in order 
to use that course of action as an avenue to correct the 
administrative errors by the chain of command.  

The JA advisory opinion states that “applicant simply had no 
reasonable basis to believe he was entitled to an HPSP 
scholarship.”  However, the applicant had a firm basis to 
believe he was contracted under the HPSP given the Air Force via 
the commanding officer of the AFROTC program, believed there was 
a binding contract, thus signing a letter stating the applicant 
was “guaranteed” a HPSP scholarship.  There is absolutely no 
question here that there was a meeting of the minds between the 
applicant and the Air Force.  

Counsel states that the JA advisory opinion stated “nor do we 
believe applicant has established an injustice.”  The 
misrepresentation by the AFROTC has and will continue to cost 
the applicant thousands of dollars to pursue an education that 
he was guaranteed by the Air Force.  Additionally, the Air Force 
will require him to complete his ADSC regardless of his level of 
education and the fact that he paid for it; will no doubt 
benefit the Air Force.  

Lastly, counsel asserts that there is a clear injustice and an 
inequitable result that can easily be corrected and should be 
corrected given the overwhelming evidence that both the 
applicant and his chain of command believed he was entitled to 
the HPSP scholarship.  The applicant should not suffer as a 
result of an error not his own.  He has already been subject to 
a heavy financial burden, which started with the required 
$2,000 deposit and continuing tuition and fees in excess of 
hundreds of thousands of dollars.  These expenses were and 
continue to be unanticipated costs due to command failures 
throughout the process.

In further support of his appeal, the applicant provides a two-
page legal brief and various other documents associated with his 
request.



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 timely filed.

3.	Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice.  After 
thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record and the applicant’s 
complete submission, we find no evidence which would persuade us 
to disturb the records.  While we note the letters of support 
from the commander, executive officer and the retired senior 
NCO, the applicant has not provided substantial evidence that 
would warrant an exception to policy.  We believe to grant the 
applicant’s request without substantial evidence would be unfair 
to others similarly situated and establish a basis for 
circumventing the procedures in place.  As such, we do not find 
the applicant’s assertions or the documentation presented 
sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by 
the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR).  
Therefore, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the 
Air Force OPRs and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis 
for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his 
burden of establishing that he has suffered either an error or 
an injustice.  Accordingly, 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 Docket Number    
BC-2012-03641 in Executive Session on 4 Jun 13, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

				Panel Chair
				Member
				Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 10 Aug 12, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Record.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPANE, dated 13 Sep 12.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 5 Oct 12.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Oct 12.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 9 Nov 12, w/atchs.




								
								Panel Chair