RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03265

						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  YES 



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His time as an Health Professions Scholarship Program (HPSP) 
student be credited as active duty service.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was inappropriately enrolled into the HPSP and put into 
reserve status.  He completed a competitive application for the 
Health Professions board and was accepted.  He should have been 
officially detailed to attend medical school in accordance with 
Title 10, United States Code (USC), subtitle A, Part III, 
chapter 101 2004a, and remained on active duty.  He did not sign 
page four of the HPSP contract, which did not apply to him, 
specifically, participating in an inactive status.

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 29 Jun 00, the applicant was admitted into the Air Force 
Academy as a cadet.  

The applicant was selected for the Armed Forces Health 
Professions Scholarship Program (AFHPSP) to obtain his medical 
degree.

On 5 Apr 04, the applicant signed the Fiscal Year (FY) 2004 
AFHPSP contract to attend medical school.

On 3 Aug 04, the applicant was appointed as an officer in the 
Air Force Reserve in the grade of second Lieutenant (O-1) and 
assigned as an HPSP student during the period 2004 through 2008.

On 3 May 08, the applicant was appointed as a captain (O-3) in 
the Medical Corps (MC) after completion of educational 
requirements.

On 4 Jun 08, the applicant commenced extended active duty (EAD) 
service.

According to AFI 36-2406, Service Dates and Dates of Rank, Table 
1.3., Note 5, service while a student in the Health Professions 
Scholarship Program, or the Uniformed Services University of 
Health Service (USUHS), is not creditable as active military or 
active commissioned service.  In fact, according to Note 12 of 
the same table, such service is only creditable for enlisted 
personnel as a cadet or midshipman at a military service 
academy; it is not creditable as such service for officers such 
as the applicant.

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/JA recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an 
error or an injustice.  A thorough review of the documents on 
file reflects that the applicant was indeed an HPSP recipient.  
Paragraph 6(f) of the HPSP contract, executed on 5 Apr 04, 
states “I will not receive service credit for the purpose of 
computing basic pay or promotion for the period of the AFHPSP 
participation.”  Further, his ARPC Form 92, Appointment Order, 
dated 17 Mar 05, reflects his participation in HPSP with 
provision for the medical school to bill the Air Force Institute 
for Technology (AFIT) for all tuition and fees totaling over 
$117,000 from HPSP funds.

A complete copy of the AFPC/JA evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPANE recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of 
an error or an injustice relating to the applicant’s active duty 
service commitment.  The statute to which the applicant refers--
Title 10 of the United States Code 2004a—does establish 
authority for the service secretary to detail up to 25 active 
duty officers per year to medical school.  However, there is no 
documentation in the applicant’s record to establish that he was 
selected for this program.  Moreover, he was not qualified for 
the program he is referring to because the governing provision 
of law for this program requires the member to have been on 
active duty for not less than two years in order to be eligible.  
At the time that the applicant entered medical school; he had 
obviously not met that requirement.  The current HPSP active 
duty service commitment remains firm.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPANE evaluation is at Exhibit D.




APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant refutes virtually every point made by the OPR and 
argues that he is not disputing his active duty service 
commitment.  He would like to correct the fact that he was 
administratively enrolled into the wrong program for his medical 
school training.  He reiterates that based on USC 101 (b)(21), 
his time at the Academy counts as four years of active duty 
service and satisfies the requirements for him to be detailed.  
According to the US Office of Personnel Management (OPM), 
sections addressing the Department of Defense: Chapter 14, Table 
14-A Rule 3 and 6, not all details require documentation.  It is 
not reasonable to expect a graduating cadet to know what 
personnel form is required and to double check theses forms.  
Additionally, there is no record of an application to the HPSP 
program, because he never applied for the HPSP program.  He 
never initialed page four of the HPSP contract which includes 
the clause that he will participate in inactive status.  There 
is no valid contract for HPSP, and a correct contract for detail 
into medical school was never provided.  In support of his 
response, the applicant provides email communication and 
excerpts from OPM (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.  We took 
notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the 
merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and 
recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary 
responsibility (OPR) and adopt their rationale as the basis for 
our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error 
of injustice.  While we note that in response to the advisory 
opinions, the applicant argues that he never applied to the HPSP 
program and that he intentionally neglected to initial page four 
of the HPSP contract, we do not find these arguments or the 
documentation provided sufficient to conclude that the applicant 
is the victim of an error or injustice.  In our view, the mere 
fact that he purposely decided to not acknowledge the individual 
terms of the contract and that the contract was subsequently 
processed is not sufficient for us to conclude that the 
applicant is somehow the victim of an error or injustice or has 
been treated unfairly.  While the applicant indicates he never 
applied to the HPSP, the fact remains that he signed an HPSP 
contract and he has provided no evidence to indicate that he was 
somehow miscounseled or erroneously led to believe that he was 
participating in some other program that would have resulted in 
the time in question being creditable as active duty service.  
Finally, we note the applicant’s argument that his four years at 
the Air Force Academy is creditable as active service and 
therefore made him eligible to be detailed to medical school 
under the provisions of Title 10 of the United States Code 
2004a.  However, in view of the fact that cadet service at a 
service academy is not creditable as active service per AFI 36-
2406, the applicant was ineligible to participate in the program 
that he claims to have been accepted into.  Therefore, in the 
absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to 
recommend granting the requested relief.

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 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-2014-03265 in Executive Session on 21 May 15, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 Jul 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Email, AFPC/JA, dated 17 Jan 14.
	Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPANE, dated 12 Sep 14.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Nov 14.
	Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, undated.