RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:          17 AUGUST 2004
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2003098817


      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.

|     |Mr. Carl W. S. Chun               |     |Director             |
|     |Mr. Kenneth H. Aucock             |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Shirley Powell                |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Robert Osborn                 |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Eloise Prendergast            |     |Member               |

      The Board considered the following evidence:

      Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

      Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion,
if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests reconsideration of his previous request that he
be granted 4 years of constructive service credit for longevity pay
purposes for his attendance at the USUHS (Uniformed Services University of
Health Sciences) from August 1983 through May 1987 (Class of 1987).

2.  The applicant states that the Defense Officer Personnel Management Act
(DOPMA), which became law on 15 September 1981, repealed the four years of
constructive service credit for medical officers attending USUHS, but
retained credit for officers who were enrolled at the USUHS on 14 September
1981.  On 23 September 1999 the Army Board for Correction of Military
Records (ABCMR) reconsidered the cases of 14 Army officers from the USUHS
class of 1987.  The ABCMR, after being made aware of its error, by a
supplemental action, withdrew relief granted to the non-USMA (United States
Military Academy) applicant, but allowed the relief to a USMA graduate to
stand.  All USUHS medical students who were also USMA graduates were
granted relief.

      a.  Just as the USMA graduates were misinformed about constructive
service credit, he too was misinformed.  He was briefed by the USUHS
Committee on Admissions on 14 October 1982 and received a briefing by the
registrar regarding military officer pay policy.  At that time he believed
that he was told that the pay process was changing, but that the new policy
would not affect the incoming medical school class and that he would
receive credit for four years of military service while attending the
USUHS.  Further, the official bulletin of the USUHS, 1983-1984, stated that
longevity credit for pay purposes accrued for students for time spent in
school, wording that was identical to pre-DOPMA documents.  Therefore, he
had reason to believe that he would receive longevity credit for pay
purposes while attending school.

      b.  Just as the USMA graduates made career decisions based on Col T's
(former Acting Surgeon, United States Military Academy) erroneous
information concerning USUHS and longevity credit, he made a career
decision based on the erroneous information contained in the USUHS bulletin
and the 14 October 1982 briefing.  There is absolutely no difference
between his situation and that of his USUHS classmates who graduated from
the USMA, as they all received equivalent misinformation.  He is entitled
to the same relief as his USUHS classmates who graduated from the USMA.

3.  The applicant provides a 29 September 1998 letter from the USUHS
General Counsel to the Secretary of Defense, in which the General Counsel
outlined the University's position that all members of the Class of 1987
should receive constructive service credit; two letters written by the Dean
of the USUHS to the Air Force and Navy boards indicating that some
briefings for prospective students of the class of 1987 did not provide
correct information concerning constructive service credit; an 18 April
1985 letter to all correction boards from the Director of
Admissions/Registration in which that official admitted that he did not
brief all prospective students of the class of 1987 and that those students
that he did not brief probably did receive inaccurate or incomplete
information concerning the effects upon entitlements due to the DOPMA
legislation; and a page from the USUHS Bulletin indicating that students
would receive longevity credit for pay purposes.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were
summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the
Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AC90-
10709A, on     6 February 1991.  Additionally, in response to his previous
request for reconsideration, on 24 September 2003, he was informed that his
request was returned without action, as he had no basis for resubmission.

2.  The applicant was honorably discharged from the Army on 19 November
1999 in the grade of lieutenant colonel, with more than 12 years of active
service. His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active
Duty) shows that his discharge was as a result of his unqualified
resignation.

3.  On 31 May 2001 this Board denied relief to a classmate of the
applicant, who stated that she should have been granted four years of
constructive credit because she too was misinformed concerning the DOPMA
changes to constructive service credit.  That applicant proffered to this
Board the same above-mentioned documents.

4.  In the 18 April 1985 letter from the Director of Admissions/Registrar,
USUHS, to the correction boards, that official stated that in his
interviews with interested matriculants for the class of 1987, he provided
them the correct information concerning constructive service credit under
DOPMA, at the same time acknowledging that not every interviewee was so
informed, because he did not personally give the briefings, e.g., two of
the three briefings were conducted on the west coast, which he did not
attend, and one on the east coast, which he did not attend because he was
on the west coast.  With his letter, the Director of Admissions/Registrar
provided charts showing the names of the martriculants, and the place and
dates of interview.  The first west coast briefing indicated on the charts
was at San Francisco on 7 December 1982.  The applicant's briefing was on
14 October 1982 at the USUHS in Bethesda, Maryland.

5.  In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from
The Office of The Surgeon General.  That office opined that the applicant
should be granted relief based on fairness and equity, in effect, because
he relied upon incorrect information and in good faith matriculated under a
misconception regarding creditable service.  In providing this opinion, The
Office of The Surgeon General obtained informal advice from the Office of
The Judge Advocate General, who opined that granting of relief to the
applicant appeared to be equitable; however, it (Office of The Judge
Advocate General) could not substitute its judgment for that of this Board.
 The applicant concurred with the advisory opinion.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant received a USUHS briefing for prospective students on
       14 October 1982 at Bethesda.  The evidence indicates that the
Director of Admissions/Registrar gave a part of that briefing and that he
properly briefed the impact of DOPMA on the prospective students.

2.  The Board has in the past awarded constructive service credit to
officers who attended the 1987 class; however, those officers have shown
that they received conflicting information from the Acting Surgeon of the
USMA and that they based career decisions on that information.

3.  Notwithstanding the applicant's contentions and the opinion put forth
by the Office of The Surgeon General, he has not shown that he was given
erroneous information concerning constructive service credit, or that he
relied on misinformation about the effects of DOPMA to make a career
decision.

4.  The applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing
argument in support of his request.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___SP __  ___RO __  ___EP __  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable
error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined that the overall
merits of this case are insufficient as a basis to amend the decision of
the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AC90-10709A, dated 6 February 1991.




            _____Shirley Powell_______
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2003098817                            |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20040817                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |112.07                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


-----------------------
[pic]