| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Nancy L. Amos | Analyst |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | Member | ||
| Mr. Donald P. Hupman, Jr. | Member |
2. The applicant requests that his medical specialty bonus contracts be aligned to 9 July.
3. The applicant states that he was selected to participate in a nonfunded graduate medical education program at Johns Hopkins University. Following his fellowship in the subspecialty of Adolescent Medicine, he was not offered the opportunity to synchronize his Medical Additional Special Pay and Incentive Special Pay to the same date. This resulted in a Medical Additional Special Pay date of 9 July and an Incentive Special Pay date of 9 October.
4. The applicant’s military records show that he entered active duty on 9 June 1994 as a Medical Corps captain in specialty 60P (Pediatrician). He participated in a fellowship in Pediatrics-Adolescent Medicine at Johns Hopkins University from 1 July 1997 to 30 June 2000.
5. In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the Office of the Surgeon General, Army Medical Department Special Pay Branch. That office noted that the applicant was eligible to enter into a one-year obligatory Incentive Special Pay contract effective 7 July 2000 – 8 July 2001 and each year thereafter in the amount of $14,000 per year and that it appeared there may have been improper counseling or misunderstanding regarding eligibility or processing of the Incentive Special Pay contract. His failure to receive Incentive Special Pay at the requested effective date of 9 July 2000 appears to be through no fault of his own. That office recommended the applicant’s Incentive Special Pay, currently effective 9 October 2000, be adjusted and overlaid to 9 July 2000, with appropriate adjustments to the next year from 9 October 2001 to 9 July 2001.
6. A copy of the advisory opinion was provided to the applicant for comment. He concurred in the advisory opinion on 11 June 2002.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. In accordance with the advisory opinion, the applicant was eligible to receive Incentive Special Pay effective 9 July 2000 instead of effective 9 October 2000.
2. In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.
RECOMMENDATION:
That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by adjusting and overlaying the applicant’s Incentive Special pay, effective 9 October 2000, to 9 July 2000 and that his Incentive Special Pay, effective 9 October 2001, be adjusted and overlaid to 9 July 2001.
BOARD VOTE:
__FNE__ __MHM__ __DPH__ GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
___Fred N. Eichorn___
CHAIRPERSON
| CASE ID | AR2002072244 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/07/16 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | GRANT |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 128.17 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070008794
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 13 December 2007 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20070008794 I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. On 1 October 2007, the Chief, Medical Corps Program Manager, Health Services Directorate, U.S. Army Recruiting Command, Fort Knox, Kentucky, stated that the applicant's constructive credit awarded in June 2004 was...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110024394
An additional 4 months can be awarded for his fellow time (August through December 1999); and f. work experience: DODI 6000.13, section 6.1.2.2.5, states "credit of 1/2 year for each year of experience up to a maximum of 3 years of constructive credit, may be granted for experience directly used by the Military Service concerned." In conclusion, the MC Program Manager recommended that the applicant's total constructive credit be adjusted to reflect 9 years, 9 months, and 5 days with an...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090003751
The applicant requests payment of a Multi-year Special Pay (MSP) and linked Multi-year Incentive Special Pay (MISP) Bonus with an active duty service obligation (ADSO) that runs concurrently with his existing Graduate Medical Education (GME) obligation. The Chief, AMEDD Special Pay Branch, summarized and opined that the applicant met eligibility criteria as outlined above and: a. in order to complete his petition, the applicant must choose an MSP agreement effective date between 1 July 2001...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050014504C070206
The Chief AMEDD Special Pay Branch points out that in accordance with Title 37, United States Code, one component of the eligibility criteria for the MSP retention bonus requires at least eight years of creditable service from their Health Professions Pay Entry Date (HPPED) –or- has completed any active duty service commitment incurred for medical education and training. The Chief, AMEDD Special Pay Branch, OTSG, has opined that the applicant is eligible to execute a two year MSP on any...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001054359C070420
A USAREC opinion, dated 22 June 2001, recommended that the applicant’s date of rank stand as presently noted and stated that the information provided by the applicant did not increase the amount of her constructive credit. A DA Form 5074-R, dated 9 January 2002, published by USAREC and provided to this Board with the 11 January 2002 advisory opinion, awards the applicant a total of 11 years, 3 months, and 22 days of entry grade constructive credit. It further indicated that the entry grade...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130002374
The applicant provides: * ISP contracts 1, 2, and 3 * Certificate of training, Fellowship in Maternal Fetal Medicine, dated 30 June 2008 CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant is requesting Army Board for Correction of Military Records intervention because the request is effective in the previous fiscal year. Volume 7A, chapter 5, section 050301, of the Department of Defense Financial Management Regulation states that to be eligible for ISP a medical officer must be below the grade of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050004002C070206
LaVerne Douglas | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. Accordingly, it is reasonable to presume that he did not receive the appropriate counseling regarding his eligibility to renegotiate the dates of his ISP contract (at a higher rate) to coincide with his MASP contract. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by providing the applicant...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140010787
She indicates she graduated from the Urology residency on 1 July 2012; however, the supporting Human Resources office failed to supply the required contracts for execution and payment. There is no record of created, executed, processed, or paid MASP or ISP contracts for the period 20120701-20130630. d. An officer must bear responsibility for their part of the contract preparation, to include their inquiry as to eligibility, requesting contract to be initiated, and executing the contract by...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110010558
The Chief, AMEDD Special Pay Branch states eligibility for the MSP and MSIP agreements requires completion of all education and training obligations or-8-years of creditable service. The applicant requests that he be allowed to retroactively execute a 2-year MSP contract to be effective on a date prior to the time that he incurred the additional 2-year GME obligation for his current fellowship, which would allow the two obligations to be served concurrently. As a result, the Board...
Furthermore, the Air Force indicates that AFI 36-2107, Table 28, Rule 36, does not apply because the fellowship training was non- Graduate Medical Education (GME) related; however, the DPMAE Educational PCS Request reflects, “Active Duty GME to GME.” In view of this, and based on the statement from the individual that miscounseled the applicant, a majority of the Board believes the interest of equity and justice can best be served by correcting the applicant’s records to reflect that the...