MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:
        


         BOARD DATE: 5 June 2003
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2002077586

         I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director
Mr. Robert J. McGowan		Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Chairperson
Mr. Thomas B. Redfern, III		Member
Ms. Karen A. Heinz		Member

         The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date. In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

         The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

         The Board considered the following evidence:

         Exhibit A - Application for correction of military
records
         Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
         advisory opinion, if any)

---

APPLICANT REQUESTS: Reconsideration of his previous request for 4 years’ constructive service credit for longevity pay purposes for his attendance at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (USUHS), Class of 1987, from August 1983 to May 1987.

APPLICANT STATES:

That the Defense Officer Personnel Management Act (DOPMA), which became law on 15 September 1981, repealed the 4 years of constructive service credit for Reserve officers attending the USUHS after 14 September 1981. He continues by stating that this Board, on 23 September 1988, granted 13 of his classmates constructive service credit. In that action, the Board found that the 13 applicants, all of whom were supposedly 1983 graduates of the United States Military Academy (USMA), had been misled by the USMA Surgeon into believing that they would receive credit for their 4 years at the USUHS. He points out that the Board erred in granting relief because one of the 13 applicants was not a USMA graduate and another was a 1977 graduate of the USMA. In either case, the individual was not among the group of students misled by the USMA Surgeon. He also points out that certain other members of the USUHS Class of 1987 were granted constructive service credit.

The applicant contends that the Board "has created a grossly inequitable and unjust situation by applying different standards to different groups of students, as well as by favoring some members of the USUHS class of '87 over others." He states that just as the USMA Class of 1983 graduates was misled, he, too, was misinformed. He attended the last scheduled prospective students briefing at the USUHS in March 1983. He contends that the Registrar started the briefing, but was called away and it was completed by a staff member who did not address the DOPMA changes to constructive service credit. He adds that, in effect, he made a decision to attend the USUHS and not a civilian medical school based upon the belief that he would receive constructive service credit. As a USMA graduate with 4 years' prior service, he is now in a situation whereby USMA graduates junior to him are receiving greater compensation for providing the same services.

In support of his application, the applicant submits: a copy of a 29 September 1998 letter from the USUHS General Counsel to the Office of The Secretary of Defense admitting that the university may have misinformed students of the Class of 1987 concerning the issue of constructive service credit; a copy of a 26 December 1985 letter from the Dean of the Medical School to the Air Force Corrections Board admitting that the USUHS School of Medicine Bulletin for 1983-1984, which was written in December 1982, did not include revisions concerning constructive service credit which were mandated by the Defense Officer Personnel Management Act (DOPMA), and that certain briefing officials did not clarify the issue for prospective students; a copy of a 5 December 1986 letter from the Dean of the Medical School to the Board for Correction of Naval Records reiterating his belief that applicants from the Class of 1987 who either were not informed, or misinformed, about constructive service credit be given constructive service credit for attendance at USUHS; a copy of an 18 April 1985 letter from the Director of Admissions/Registrar of the Medical School admitting that segments of the Class of 1987 which he did not personally brief could have been misled on the issue of constructive service credit; and a copy of the pertinent pages of the Bulletin of The School of Medicine, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences 1983-1984 which states, “Longevity credit for pay purposes accrues for students for time spent in school . . . .”

EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:

He was commissioned a Second Lieutenant, Corps of Engineers, upon graduation from the USMA on 6 June 1979. He was promoted to Captain on 1 June 1983. On 13 July 1983, he resigned his commission and, on 14 July 1983, accepted appointment as a Second Lieutenant, US Army Reserve (USAR) in order to attend the USUHS.

The applicant attended the USUHS from August 1983 through May 1987 when he graduated with a Doctor of Medicine degree. On 16 May 1987, he was commissioned in the Regular Army as a Captain, Medical Corps. He is now a Lieutenant Colonel serving on active duty in the Army Medical Corps.

In a letter dated 18 April 1985 to the each Service’s Board of Corrections, the Director of Admissions/Registrar stated, “It is very possible that a given segment of the Class of 1987 could have, and probably did, receive inaccurate or incomplete information from any number of official/semi-official sources concerning the effects upon entitlements (pay purposes at the time of graduation and retirement) due to the DOMPA legislation.” He made this statement regarding those prospective students whom he did not personally brief and added that on three occasions (two on the west coast - 25-27 January 1983 and 22-24 February 1983 - and one on the east coast - 9 December 1982), he did not personally give the briefings.

According to records from the Office of the Registrar at USUHS, the applicant, as a prospective student, attended a briefing at the USUHS, Bethesda, Maryland on 24 March 1983. The briefing was given by the Dean of Admissions/Registrar. The applicant states that the Dean of Admissions/Registrar began the briefing, but was later called away and the briefing was continued by a staff member who did not address the issue of constructive service credit or the fact that DOPMA had rescinded it.

DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1. There is no record of the applicant having made a previous request to this Board; therefore, this is not viewed as a request for reconsideration.

2. Official USUHS records reflect that the applicant was briefed at the USUHS, Bethesda, Maryland, on 24 March 1983, and that the Dean of Admissions/
Register was the official briefer for the Admissions/Registrar's Office. The Dean of Admissions/Registrar has stated for the record that he understood the ramifications of DOMPA upon constructive service credit for USUHS students and properly briefed this to all prospective students. There is no evidence that the Dean of Admissions/Registrar did not conduct the briefing and the applicant has provided none.

3. Although the applicant was given a copy of the USUHS School of Medicine Bulletin for 1983-1984 which incorrectly stated that students would receive longevity credit for pay purposes, the Dean of Admissions/Registrar has stated for the record that he verbally briefed prospective students that such was not the case. It would have been desirable if the USUHS had published a new Bulletin, or at least published an errata sheet for the existing Bulletin, but this was not done.

4. Notwithstanding the applicant's contentions, this Board has not created "a grossly inequitable and unjust situation by applying different standards to different groups of students, as well as by favoring some members of the USUHS class of '87 over others" who attended the USUHS. The standard of proof applied by the Board in all cases has been whether the applicant can prove that he or she was misinformed about the implications of DOPMA on constructive service credit. The 1983 USMA graduates met that standard of proof, as have several other USUHS graduates who were not briefed by the Director of Admissions/Register.

5. The applicant contends that he chose to attend the USUHS over a civilian medical school primarily because of the belief that he would receive constructive service credit for his attendance. The Board notes that USUHS students are USAR Second Lieutenants serving on active duty. As such, they are entitled to full pay and allowances at pay grade O-1 while attending medical school; they and their family members receive medical and dental benefits, and commissary and Post Exchange privileges. Attendance at a civilian medical school does not provide similar benefits. Even under the Health Professionals Scholarship Program (HPSP), entitlements only consist of tuition, fees, reimbursable

---

expenses (books, nonexpendable supplies and equipment), and a monthly stipend for 10 1/2 months per year. The Board believes that USUHS attendance is vastly more rewarding than any other medical school attendance and that constructive service credit for attendance would have been a negligible consideration in the decision process.

6. In order to justify correction of a military record, the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.

7. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

DETERMINATION: The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

________ ________ ________ GRANT

________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__aao___ __tbr___ __kah___ DENY APPLICATION

                  Carl W. S. Chun
                  Director, Army Board for Correction
of Military Records

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002077586
SUFFIX
RECON
DATE BOARDED	20020605
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
DATE OF DISCHARGE
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
DISCHARGE REASON
BOARD DECISION	DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1.	102.08
2.	128.00
3.
4.
5.
6.