RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01870
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He retroactively receive Medical Corps Additional Special Pay (ASP) and Incentive Special Pay (ISP) with an effective date of 12 Jul 13.
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
At the time of his in-processing/accession into the Regular Air Force on 12 Jul 13, he was incorrectly informed by a base finance representative that medical special pays were initiated automatically. Had he been correctly informed about some special pays such as ASP and ISP requiring form submission, while others like monthly variable special pay (VSP) do not require form submission, he would have acted accordingly and submitted the required forms.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 12 Jul 13, the applicant was ordered to active duty, assigned to the Air Force Institute of Technology (AETC), Greenville City, SC.
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C.
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPANF recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. AFPC/DPANFl, Medical Special Pays Branch, did not receive an ASP or ISP contract for the applicant with an effective date of July 2013. According to the Comptroller General, retroactive administrative pay is generally prohibited bar an administrative error (B-214118 (June 1, 1984); B-195622.0M, LIM (March 4, 1980); and B-186925 (November 4, 1976)). In addition, when interpreting statutes, there is a presumption against retroactivity. Statutes should generally not be read to have retroactive effect unless specific language requires (see Bowen v. Georgetown University Hospital, 488 U.S.204 (1988); Immigration & Naturalization Service v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289 (2001); and Martin v. Hadix, 527 U.S. 343 (1999)). In this case, there was no administrative error on the part of the Air Force. Furthermore, the statute at issue (37 USC 302) contains no retroactive language. In AFPC/DPANFs opinion, considering all the circumstances in this case, the applicant's record should not now be altered, as the error was on the part of the applicant, not the Air Force, and the circumstances simply do not rise to a level that "shocks the sense of justice" within the meaning of 10 USC § 1552.
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPANF evaluation is at Exhibit C.
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 4 Aug 14 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). As of this date, no response has been received by this office.
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. We took notice of the applicants complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice. Other than the applicants uncorroborated assertions that he was incorrectly informed by a base finance representative that medical special pays were initiated automatically, the preponderance of the evidence indicates there was no administrative error on the part of the Air Force. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting 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-2014-01870 in Executive Session on 24 Mar 15 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
The following documentary evidence pertaining AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-01870 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 28 Apr 14.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPANF, dated 13 Jun 14.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Aug 14.
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01648
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01648 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He receive his entitlement to Additional Special Pay (ASP) and Incentive Special Pay (ISP), which was not disbursed. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letter prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibit C and D. AIR...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00353
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00353 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: She receive Physician Additional Special Pay (ASP) from 2010 to 2013. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She thought when she filed for her specialty pay bonuses in 2010 that the ASP was part of the Multi-year Incentive Special Pay (MISP) and Multi-year Special Pay (MSP) contracts she submitted, but it was not. The...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00163
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00163 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: She receive Board Certification Pay (BCP) for the period 1 Jan 11 through 31 Dec 13. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPANF...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02575
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02575 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: She receive retroactive payment of Legacy Incentive Specialty Pay (ISP) for the period 2012 and 2013. After reviewing the applicants records and documentation submitted, they determined that the applicant submitted a single year ISP request 30 Oct 12 and her supervisor declined to certify her ISP contract. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02380
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02380 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He receive retro-active Additional Special Pay (ASP) for 2012 and 2013. ASP is not indicated on the MSP/MISP contract, nor was the rate for ASP annotated on the MSP/MISP contract that the member states he mistakenly assumed was included. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00204
The applicant was eligible for NC ISP for FY 12, however, since she filed her contract more than three months after her effective date, the contract would not have been timely submitted and would not have been processed by AFPC Medical Special Pays with the requested effective date. Based on the permanent revocation of her clinical nursing practice she is not eligible for medical special pays to include the FY 13 NC ISP. The applicant contends her FY 12 ISP contract was properly...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 03298
His records be corrected to reflect that he was appointed into the medical corps (MC) in the grade of major in Jan 12, instead of being appointed in the grade of captain in Aug 13 and he receive medical special pays and bonuses effective said date. He worked as a full time Flight Surgeon for over a year but received only 50 percent CSC for this time, which unfairly delayed his promotion to major. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did...
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,...
There are no provisions for pro-rating ASP/ISP for active duty Air Force physicians facing mandatory separation. Counsel submitted a response and states that although applicant was given a separation date of 30 September 1997, he was extended for medical reasons until 31 December 1997 and that during this time he performed the same duties he had been performing when he previously received both ASP and ISP payments. Applicant received a letter, dated 10 February 1997, which indicated that...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-01126
He was eligible to receive the special pays as of 1 July 2009 since he had completed a fellowship prior to entering active duty. The applicant's complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit F. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPAMF1 recommends approval of ASP and ISP payments and state the applicant is eligible to receive ASP effective 1 July 2009 and pro rata Single-Year-ISP from 1 July 2009 to 18 Jan 2010. He...