RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-004519 

 

 COUNSEL: 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His records be corrected to reflect he is entitled to receive 
Multi-Year Special Pay (MSP). 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

His recruiter promised him that upon entering active duty his 
yearly salary would be $131,000 which would include MSP of 
$25,000.00. 

 

The recruiter’s promises persuaded him to enter into the 
Financial Assistance Program (FAP). Had he known he would not 
receive the MSP he would not have entered military service. 

 

The Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR) 
recently set precedent in granting approval for MSP for an Air 
Force physician in a similar situation. 

 

The Statement of Understanding notes a participant would be 
eligible for MSP if the individual was not incurring an active 
duty service commitment (ADSC) for medical education. The 
applicant believes he would incur an ADSC for his participation 
in FAP and not for medical education. He further believes he 
was eligible for MSP because he did not receive monies for his 
medical education. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant counsel provides an 
expanded statement and copies of the applicant’s FY 2006 
Contract for the Financial Assistance Program (FAP) and FY 2006 
Statement of Understanding (SOU), the case file for AFBCMR 
Docket Number BC-2011-03040, and other documents related to this 
matter. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

 

 


STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

On 2 Dec 05, the applicant signed the FY 2005 Contract Financial 
Assistance Program (FAP) for Physicians in Specialized Training 
and the Statement of Understanding for the F. Howard Hebert, 
Armed Forces Financial Assistance Program (AFFAP), acknowledging 
he understood the criteria for the program and the benefits he 
was entitled to receive. The applicant participated in the FAP 
from 2 Dec 05 through 30 Jun 09. 

 

The FAP program augments critically short medical specialties by 
offering financial assistance to residents training in these 
specialties in exchange for an ADSC upon completion of their 
training. This assistance is in addition to the salary paid by 
their civilian residency program. 

 

On 28 Jun 09, the applicant commenced his service in the Regular 
Air Force. 

 

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. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFRS/SOC recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of 
an error or an injustice. The applicant signed his FAP Contract 
acknowledging his understanding of the financial incentives 
which he was contractually entitled during his FAP sponsorship 
and his ADSC. Moreover, he signed the FY 2006 FAP SOU 
acknowledging he understood, by initialing that MSP would not be 
available to him. There was no evidence found to substantiate 
the applicant was offered or given false statements or promises 
of base pay to include MSP, loan repayments, or guaranteed 
fellowship acceptance by the recruiter. 

 

In an effort to substantiate his request, the applicant 
contacted his former recruiter and attempted to persuade him to 
sign an affidavit indicating the recruiter had made numerous 
promises pertaining to his salary to include MSP, loan 
repayments, and guaranteed fellowship acceptance. The recruiter 
found the affidavit request to be untrue and denied the 
applicant assistance due to the precarious and unreliable nature 
of the applicant’s requests. 

 

A complete copy of the AFRS/SOC evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

 

 

 


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

Counsel notes the Chief, Congressional Inquiry Division 
acknowledged in a response to the applicant’s Congressional 
representative that several promises were made to the applicant 
by his recruiter. The applicant believes then and now that this 
statement proves he was promised an annual salary of $131,000, 
to include MSP. The advisory writer does not address this issue 
and now contends that MSP was not offered to the applicant. 
Instead, he cites a provision of the AFFAP SOU contending a 
review of Air Force Recruiting Service (AFRS) records revealed 
no evidence of false statements or promises for base salary with 
MSP. The advisory writer then accuses the applicant of 
soliciting and attempting to commit a fraud on the United 
States. The vague and poorly worded provision of the AFFAP SOU 
indicates that, to receive MSP, physicians must have either 
eight years of creditable service or have "no ADSC for medical 
education." The applicant believes he was entitled to MSP upon 
his initial entry into the Air Force because the active duty 
service commitment he incurred was not "for medical education" 
but for his participation in the AFFAP program. 

 

The applicant’s contract explicitly stated that he agreed and 
understood he is incurring an ADSC for "any participation in the 
program" and for "sponsorship in the AFFAP…based on the 
provisions in effect on the date my financial assistance 
benefits commence." The contract also stipulated that, while a 
member of the AFFAP is in good standing, he is entitled to a 
monthly stipend, to receive pay and allowances for active duty, 
to receive an annual taxable grant, and to have all educational 
expenses paid that the Air Force deems normal and required. The 
applicant did not have any educational expenses paid by the Air 
Force; he only received stipends, active-duty pay, and taxable 
grants. We note the fact that these grants were taxable 
demonstrates that they were not payments for educational 
expenses. 

 

The Congressional Inquiry Division addressed paying off medical 
student loans and stated the AFFAP is a financial assistance 
program and not a loan repayment program. Furthermore, 
participants in the program receive significant financial 
support and are allowed to determine how they should utilize 
their financial support. There was documentation provided with 
the applicant’s original application showing the financial 
support the applicant received in the form of stipends, active 
duty pay, and taxable grants. The applicant did not incur any 
active duty service commitment explicitly for medical education. 
The AFFAP program did not pay for the applicant’s medical 
education. The AFFAP program paid stipends to the applicant to 
sustain himself while he put himself through medical school. 

 

There was no language in the applicant’s contract or statement 
of understanding linking his ADSC to payments received for 
medical education. 


The statement indicating that a review of AFRS records found no 
evidence of false statements or promises of base salary to 
include MSP offered by recruiter provides little in 
determination of an error and injustice in this case. Of course 
the recruiter is not going to maintain file evidence of "false 
statements" made. In fact, the recruiter admitted to the 
applicant during a telephone conversation that, upon his 
Permanent Change of Station (PCS) move in 2007, that the 
recruiter shredded all documents in his possession related to 
the applicant’s recruitment. This act of shredding documents 
related to the applicant’s recruitment suggests that the 
recruiter had something to hide or that his recruitment of the 
applicant was not proper and did not want to make it a matter of 
record. 

 

The advisory opinion for another Air Force physician described 
how it is standard procedure for recruiters to provide 
applicants for the Medical Corps with an estimated pay chart 
based on current regular and special pay amounts. However, it 
was noted that the AETC Form 1431, Medical Service Grade and Pay 
Computation Worksheet, is required in a Medical Corps 
application. It was further noted applicants are provided the 
locally produced product or the AETC FM 1431 form for 
informational purposes only for an idea of estimated pay after 
residency. The applicant was not provided with either a locally 
produced product or an AETC FM 1431. This absence of an AFRS 
record, which was required to be provided to the applicant and 
to be maintained by the recruiting service, reflects negatively 
on that service in that it is self-serving that such a record 
was either never created or, if it was, not maintained; or 
worse, shredded. This Board should hold the AFRS accountable 
for the absence of this record and for failing to provide the 
applicant a definitive document about his pay entitlements. The 
fact that other Air Force physician received such a document 
that reflected a promised immediate entitlement to MSP shows the 
recruiting service has made the advisory writer called a false 
statement about salary entitlements. 

 

In the case of the other Air Force physician his recruiter 
induced him to enter into the AFFAP program, and active service, 
by telling him that he could expect to receive the MSP annual 
lump sum payment when he entered the Air Force, not after 
completion of an active duty service commitment. The Board 
recognized the injustice in this practice and corrected the 
error by awarding the physician the amount claimed as a matter 
of contract enforcement. We also suggested that an Inspector 
General investigation should be initiated to get to the root of 
the shameful practices in Air Force medical recruiting and stop 
these practices before they happen again. If was further noted 
that the advisory opinions did not address if there was any 
official concern about the practice of falsely promising MSP. 
By and through this present application, we once again urge 
referral of these matters to the Air Force Inspector General. A 
wide ranging inquiry would no doubt reveal the depth and breadth 


of false or inaccurate representations in Air Force medical 
recruiting. In the end, this issue is not solely about money 
promised. It is about mission effectiveness and mission 
accomplishment. 

 

In trying to correct this matter, the applicant contacted the 
recruiter to get clarification on the information provided him 
at the time of his recruitment. The applicant also forwarded 
the information from the recruiter to the Area Defense Counsel 
at Nellis AFB. This shows the applicant was not soliciting 
assistance to fraud the Air Force in fact he was trying to work 
within the Air Force legal system. The applicant also contacted 
medical officials at various levels and positions in his effort 
to seek assistance to correct the error and injustice in his 
case. 

 

In the final analysis, the applicant sits precisely in the place 
the other Air Force physician was when this Board recognized the 
error and injustice in the manner in which the physician was 
recruited by representations of immediate receipt of MSP. The 
applicant and the other physician relied on promises of salary 
amounts that turned out not to materialize and threw both of 
them into financial hardship such that leaving the Air Force has 
become the only viable solution to an unworkable situation. We 
ask this Board to recognize the error and injustice against the 
applicant and to send a clear message to the Air Force medical 
recruiting service that if their house is not now in order, it 
needs to be fixed before more damage is done. 

 

A complete copy of the counsel’ response with attachments is at 
Exhibit E. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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. The 
applicant contends his recruiter mislead him to believe his 
yearly salary would include Multi-Year Special Pay (MSP). We 
took notice of the applicant's complete submission, to include 
his rebuttal response, in judging the merits of the case; 
however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air 
Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale 
as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the 
victim of an error or injustice. The applicant signed and 
initialed his FAP Contract and Statement of Understanding 
indicating he understood and was aware of the monies he would 
receive while participating in the financial assistance program 


and while on active duty. There was no evidence found to 
substantiate the applicant’s assertion that his recruiter 
offered or gave false promises to the applicant regarding pay, 
loan repayments, or guaranteed fellowship acceptance. While 
Counsel cites a case where the Board recommended granting the 
similar request of another applicant, essentially asserting that 
similar consideration should be applied to the applicant’s case 
and the requested relief should be granted, we do not find that 
our previous action in the noted case makes the applicant the 
victim of an error or injustice. In this respect, we note that 
each case before this Board is considered on its own merits, and 
precedent does not bind us. While we do strive for consistency 
in the manner in which evidence is evaluated and analyzed, we 
are not bound to recommend relief in one circumstance simply 
because the situation being reviewed appears similar to another 
case. In this respect, we note that in the cited case, the 
Board found the evidence presented by the applicant, 
specifically, a copy of a pay estimate prepared by his recruiter 
indicating that he would receive MSP, sufficient to conclude 
that he could have been led to believe that he would receive MSP 
during the initial years of his service. However, we have no 
such showing in the instant case. While Counsel would like to 
believe that the Board’s action in the cited case constitutes 
evidence of a systemic practice of deliberately misleading 
physicians to believe they will receive MSP, despite clear 
language to the contrary in the contract, we do not find the 
evidence presented by this applicant sufficient to conclude that 
he was somehow misled about the overall compensation he could 
expect to receive in the initial years of his active service. 
While the applicant’s assertions are duly noted, other than 
argument and innuendo, neither the applicant nor his Counsel 
have presented any real evidence to support his claim that he 
was promised a higher level of compensation than he currently 
receives. Therefore, we find no basis to conclude that the 
applicant was promised anything more than what was described in 
the contract that he signed or recommend that any relief be 
granted. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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-2012-04519 in Executive Session on 18 Jul 13, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 26 Aug 12, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFRS/RSOC, dated 28 Nov 12, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Nov 12. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, Counsel, dated 24 Dec 12, w/atchs. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Chair