RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03298

					COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES 



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  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.

2.  His promotion to major be effective in Jan 12, instead of 
Nov 14.

3.  He receive 100 percent Constructive Service Credit (CSC) for 
Line of the Air Force (LAF) time rather than 50 percent credit. 


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

1.  The denial of his original accession request was due to a 
misapplication of the rules and was further motivated by 
reprisal due to his contribution to a medical exception to 
policy pertaining to another officer.

2.  He met all the requirements to serve as a Flight Surgeon and 
served unsupervised in that role from Oct 12 through Nov 13.  
The stated requirement that he complete a three-year residency 
before being accessed into the MC was a violation of AFI 44-119, 
Medical Quality Operations. 

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

In Jan 12, while serving in the grade of captain (O-3), 
according to the documents provided by the applicant, he 
submitted his initial Competitive Component Transfer (CCT) 
request to enter the MC.
On 3 Apr 12, the applicant’s CCT request was disapproved because 
it lacked approval of the gaining and losing career field 
manager, which is required based on provisions of AFI 36-2106, 
Competitive Category Transfer.

On 8 Apr 13, according to AFPC/DPANF, the applicant resubmitted 
his CCT request.

On 5 Nov 13, the senate confirmed the applicant’s appointment in 
the grade of major (0-4).

On 7 Nov 13, the applicant’s CCT order was published 
transferring him from the LAF to the MC in the grade of major 
with a date of rank of 18 Apr 10.

On 14 Nov 13, the applicant was notified via email that his 
(CSC) was incorrectly computed.  Specifically, the applicant was 
inadvertently given 100 percent credit for LAF time instead of 
50 percent credit.  The corrected total was computed as 9 years, 
7 months, and 12 days.  As at least ten years CSC is required 
for appointment in the grade of major, the applicant should not 
have been appointed in the grade of major (O-4), but instead 
appointed in the grade of captain (O-3).

On 15 Nov 13, according to AFPC/DPANF, the applicant’s CSC was 
re-evaluated to reflect a total credit of 9 years, 2 months, and 
22 days (because transfer date was adjusted from 1 Oct 13 to 
1 Aug 13).

On 20 Nov 13, the CCT order was amended changing the applicant’s 
transferred effective date to 1 Aug 13 and his rank to captain 
with a date of rank of 9 May 08.  As a result, the applicant 
became eligible for consideration for promotion to the grade of 
major (O-4) by the CY13 Maj Medical Services Corps (MSC) Central 
Selection Board (CSB).  As such, he was considered by a Special 
Selection Board (SSB) for the noted CSB on 9 Jun 14 and was 
selected for promotion.  As a result, he was promoted to the 
grade of major (O-4) on 14 Nov 14, with a date of rank of 
9 May 14.


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPANP recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of 
an injustice.  The applicant opted to enter the Air Force as a 
pilot.  In 12, he decided to pursue becoming a pilot-physician 
but was not qualified to practice medicine independently and 
lacked several requirements necessary to enter the MC.  He 
lacked board certification, completion of residency training, 
and the necessary work experience.  However, due to senior 
leader interest, he was afforded an unprecedented and wholly 
unique opportunity.  The applicant references AFI 44-119, but 
misunderstood its context.  This applies to physicians who were 
already accessed and are subsequently discovered to lack 
specific skill sets that require supervision until the officer 
achieves full competency.  The AF does not access fully 
qualified physicians that are known in advance to lack clinical 
currency or require supervision.  Recognizing the applicant’s 
future value to the Air Force, he was afforded special 
arrangements that made it possible for him to enter the MC, even 
though he was not fully qualified to do so and did not become 
qualified for entry into the MC until Sep 12.  He did not 
resubmit his CCT request until Apr 13.  The request was not 
approved by Congress & the President until Nov 13.  As for his 
requests for special pays, he was not eligible to sign special 
pay contracts until this time because he was not yet part of the 
MC.  He missed his promotion board in Sep 13 because he was not 
yet part of the MC, but met the special selection board the next 
May and received the date of rank he would have originally 
received had he met the board in Sep 13.  

The applicant was not eligible for medical special pay until he 
was approved for entry into the MC in Nov 13.  He submitted an 
Additional Special Pay (ASP) contract in Dec 13, resulting in 
the 30 Nov 14 active duty service commitment.  Medical Special 
Pay (MSP) contracts cannot be backdated earlier than the first 
day of the month in which they are signed.  He was not eligible 
for MSP earlier, because his CCT had not been approved by the 
President or Congress until Nov 13.  The applicant received one 
year credit toward his MSP date which set his variable special 
pay (VSP) rate.  Once approved in Nov 13 to enter the MC, his 
VSP could be back paid to his effective date of entry into the 
MC (Aug 13).  The applicant was paid VSP from 1 Apr 13 instead 
of 1 Aug 13 by mistake.  This was resolved with Defense Finance 
and Accounting System (DFAS) in Mar 14 to collect the four month 
overpayment.  

After review of the processing of the applicant’s case, no 
evidence of any adverse influence was found by the OPR.  To the 
contrary, rather than being wronged, he was afforded unique 
advantages that made it possible for him to enter the MC.

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


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant refutes virtually every point made by the OPR and 
argues that he was a fully qualified physician when he initially 
attempted to transfer into the MC starting in 2009.  The OPR 
conveniently omits the fact that he never should have waited for 
Congressional approval in 2013.  The only reason he waited five 
additional months for Congressional approval was because their 
office incorrectly calculated his grade.  If they had done their 
job correctly, he would have joined the MC as a Captain and met 
the medical promotion board in Sep 13.  He was forced to wait 
for a supplemental selection board to convene at the end of 
May 14.  Not only was he denied promotion and pay because of 
these errors, he interviewed for a highly competitive program in 
Oct 14 and was not selected.  Having the grade of major could 
have bolstered his chances.  The pilot-physician program is an 
elite and challenging program.  There are only 12 in the AF and 
it would seem that the AF would make efforts to assist a member 
in achieving this goal instead of trying to dissuade him.  In 
support of his response, the applicant provides copies of an 
Inspector General (IG) complaint, emails pertaining to his case 
and excerpts from his personnel records (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 injustice.  We took notice of 
the applicant’s 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 injustice.  His argument on rebuttal, 
that the delay in his appointment caused him to be deprived of 
opportunities he would have been eligible for had his 
appointment not been delayed, were considered.  However, even if 
the applicant had provided evidence of specific opportunities to 
compete for advancement, other than speculation and conjecture; 
he has provided no evidence he would have been selected for said 
opportunities if not for the fact that he held the grade of 
captain at the time of his application.  Argument and conjecture 
are not a basis for a determination that an applicant has been 
the victim of an error or injustice.  Ultimately, while the 
applicant’s arguments are duly noted, in our view, the Air Force 
went to great lengths to tailor a program that recognized the 
applicant’s potential to serve as a pilot-physician.  While it 
is clear that his CSC was initially erroneously calculated, we 
believe the Air force went to great efforts to correct the error 
by backdating his accession into the medical corps (MC) for the 
sole purpose of making him eligible for promotion consideration 
by the Sep 13 CSB and subsequent consideration by the Jun 14 
SSB.  In our view, this represents full and fitting relief.  
Finally, we note the applicant claims that he is the victim of 
reprisal in violation of 10 USC 1034, the law also known as the 
Whistleblower Protection Act.  However, other than his own 
uncorroborated assertions, the applicant has presented no direct 
evidence that a favorable personnel action was withheld, or that 
such action was threatened to be withheld, or that an 
unfavorable action was taken or threatened, in retaliation to a 
protected communication.  Even if we assume for the sake of 
argument that there was a protected communication, the applicant 
has presented no evidence whatsoever of a reprisal motive being 
present in his dealings with various Air Force officials as he 
sought to resolve the issues related to his transfer to the 
medical corps and his subsequent promotion to the grade of 
major.  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-2014-03298 in Executive Session on 25 Feb 15, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	

The following documentary evidence pertaining AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2014-03298 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 7 Aug 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPANP, dated 1 Dec 14.
Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Jan 15.
Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, undated, w/atchs.