RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:



      BOARD DATE:        9 December 2004
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2004100211


      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. W. W. Osborn, Jr.             |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Melvin H. Meyer               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Linda D. Simmons              |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Michael J. Flynn              |     |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 in effect, constructive service credit for his
Doctorate of Philosophy (PhD) in nutrition.

2.  The applicant states that he should have been granted 4 years
constructive service credit for his PhD in nutrition because it definitely
adds adjunctive skills to his qualifications and made him a more valuable
asset to the Army.

3.  The applicant provides copies of his initial processing documents, oath
of office, orders to active duty; his transcript and diplomas from Ohio
State University showing he received a Bachelor of Science (BS) in
nutrition in June 1994, a Master of Science (MS) in nutrition in September
1998 and the PhD in September 1999.  He also provided his certification
card as a Registered Dietician showing a qualification period from 22 
October 2003 to 31 August 2004, a copy of chapter 3 of Army Regulation 135-
101 (Appointment of Reserve Commissioned Officers for Assignment to Army
Medical Department Branches) his Officer Record Brief and his curriculum
vitae.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant's military records show that, on 15 April 2002, he was
appointed a second lieutenant (2LT) Army Reserve (USAR) in the Army Medical
Specialty Corps.  His 16 May 2002 orders to active duty specified that he
was entitled to 0 years, 0 months and 0 days of constructive service credit
based on the phase point schedule published for Fiscal Year 2002.  He
entered active duty on 18 September 2002 for the purpose of completing a 9-
month Dietetic Internship and for a 3-year period on active duty (inclusive
of the internship period.)

2.  Army Regulation 135-101, prescribes the policies, procedures, and
eligibility criteria for appointment of commissioned officers in the
Reserve in the six branches of the Army Medical Department.  Entry grade
credit is based on constructive credit for advanced education and prior
commissioned service.  Subparagraph 2-1b states, "Constructive service
credit will be granted for basic periods of professional training and
experience accrued after receipt of the basic qualifying degree.  See
tables 3-1, 3-3, 3-4, and 3-5.  Credit limits are prescribed in table
entries and footnotes."  Paragraph 3-3 states that grade determination
criteria for Reserve officers entering active duty will be upgraded
annually and published in the Department of the Army (DA) Circular 601
series.  It also provides that "Authorized credit in excess of the minimum
required for appointment to the appropriate grade in that circular will be
used to adjust the
date of rank within that grade."  Table 3-1, Constructive Service Credit 3-
1, provides in pertinent part that, "Credit for additional advanced degree
(see table 3-4)  Degree must add adjunctive skills to primary specialty and
must contribute directly to performance in anticipated duty position.
Table 3-4 (Credit for Advanced Additional Degrees provides that, "Advanced
degrees in the specialties listed below may qualify for additional
constructive credit."  The list includes "Dietetics" but not nutrition.
Table 3-5 Postbaccalaureate Education Credit provides, "The following
credit may be granted for completion of the education or formal training
included."  The table specifies that ¾ year of constructive service credit
may be awarded for completion or formal training in a dietetic internship
or coordinated program.  A period of time will only be counted/awarded
once.

3.  Department of Defense Instruction (DODI) 6000.13 (Medical Manpower and
Personnel) paragraph 6.1.2.2.2 provides for credit for a master’s and
doctorate in other than medicine and dentistry.  Whether it is the primary
degree or an additional advanced degree, it is credited as full-time
equivalent education of up to two years for a master’s degree and up to
four years for a doctorate.  Credit may not include time spent in
attainment of baccalaureate or other lower degrees.  No additional credit
may be given for more than one advanced degree in a single field, or
closely related field. The total credit allowed for having both a master’s
and a doctorate degree may not exceed the maximum allowed for a doctorate.
Paragraph 6.1.2.2.3 states, "The additional degree must add adjunctive
skills to the primary specialty and must contribute directly to performance
in the anticipated position in the Military Service concerned."  Paragraph
6.1.2.2.4 provides that year-for-year credit shall be granted for the
successful completion of internship, residency, fellowship or equivalent
graduate medical, dental, or other formal professional training (i.e.,
clinical psychology internship or dietetic internship, etc.) required by
the Military Service concerned.  Training must be approved by the
appropriate accrediting agency, and may not exceed that required for
certification in the specialty.   Day-for-day credit shall be awarded for
approved programs of less than one year in duration.

4.  During the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained
from the U. S. Army Recruiting Command (USAREC).  The Chief, Medical
Service Corps Division, USAREC noted that, although the applicant indeed
has a PhD in nutrition, he was not a registered dietitian.  When he earned
the PhD, he lacked the essential prerequisite to qualify for constructive
credit, the basic qualification as a Registered Dietician based upon
completion of an internship.  The applicant entered active duty, completed
the internship and was the eligible to set for the examination to become a
Registered Dietician.  Had he been a Registered Dietician before he started
the PhD program he might have been eligible for constructive credit.  The
opinion also noted that the only way that an individual may become a
Registered Dietician while on active duty was to complete the internship on
active duty.  Dieticians who are already fully qualified may be accessed
only through the Army Reserve [inactive duty] programs.  The opinion notes
that both the Army and the DOD guidance require that an advanced degree add
adjunctive skills.  "Since LT [applicant] did not have a primary
specialty,(i.e. registered dietitian) he is ineligible for the awarding of
additional constructive credit for entry grade upon appointment.…"

5.  The opinion was forwarded to the applicant for rebuttal.  The
applicant's believes that USAREC misinterpreted the governing regulations.
He cites the governing Army regulation and contends that there is no
requirement to actually possess the basic qualification before starting a
program that will add adjunctive skills.  He further maintains that his
education and research experience would be more valuable to the Army if he
were a captain because assignment to the Army Research Institute is limited
to captains and above.

6.  The rebuttal enclosed copies of chapter 3 (Grade Determination) of Army
Regulation 135-101 and the advisory opinion itself.  It also enclosed his
orders to active duty, his application for appointment, a DD Form 448-2
(Acceptance of MIPR).  Additionally, a 13 February 2003 Memorandum For The
Commander, Walter Reed Army Medical Center addressed the approval of the
applicant's   proposal for a Health Promotion and Wellness Project.  His
academic evaluation report rated him as "Achieved Course Standards" but it
provided extensive and  highly complementary narrative comments about his
experience, proficiency as a researcher and abilities as a leader.  The
report concluded, "Promote this Deserving Officer to Captain now."

7.  Also included was a memorandum from the Chief Clinical Dietetics and
Research Division, through the Walter Reed chain of command..  This
favorably endorsed document argues that the applicant's B.S. in nutrition
was the "basic qualifying degree," that table 3-3 of Army Regulation 135-
101 provides for 4 years constructive service for a PhD and that Table 3-4
specifies that the field of dietetics is eligible for constructive service
credit for additional advanced degrees.  The writer and the endorsers
contend that the requested relief would be in consonance with the governing
Army and DOD regulations and recommend that the requested constructive
service credit and associated back pay be authorized.

8.  Subsequent to the submission of the rebuttal, the applicant submitted a
copy of his latest Officer Evaluation Report (OER).  During the period July
2003 through July 2004 the applicant's duties included, "…Coordinates and
overseas research activities in the areas such as clinical nutrition,
nutritional science and applied dietetics.  Serves as the principal
investigator for a $205,000.00 funded research project.  Serves as a member
of the Human Use Committee, Department of Clinical Investigations, WRAMC.
Serves as a member of the Army Dietary Supplement Working Group.  Provided
mentorship and didactic instruction to dietetic interns in general and
medical research.  Serves as an Adjunct Assistant Professor, Uniformed
Services University of the Health Sciences (USUHS), Bethesda, MD.  Serves
as a doctoral dissertation committee member, University of Maryland."

9.  The senior rater marked him as best qualified and above the center of
mass and provided the following comments:

      First lieutenant [applicant's] performance has been extraordinary. He
      arrived as an intern, quickly became a Registered Dietitian, and hit
      the ground running, infusing leadership, professionalism and energy
      into an organization to establish a top-notch research program.
      Lieutenant [applicant] is a well-known and respected researcher who
      embraces collaboration and willingly shares his expertise.  Lieutenant
      [applicant] is proactive and embraces those just entering the
      profession serving as a superb mentor to interns, graduate students
      and other staff members.  He has unlimited potential.  We must retain
      this high caliber officer.  Provide him with divers and challenging
      opportunities and he will flourish.  Promote immediately."

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contentions, his supporter's arguments and the
assignments and performance cited in his latest OER have all been noted.
However, they do not demonstrate an error or an injustice in the case.
Although the advanced education and research experience has already proven
valuable to the Army, but they were not the basis for his original
appointment and duty assignment.  He was recruited as a entry level dietary
intern and there is no available evidence that his PhD and research
experience had any influence upon the decision to accept him for that
program.  Neither is there any evidence that the applicant was counseled
that he would receive constructive service credit for his PhD.

2.  There might appear to be an injustice in this case because, if the
applicant had been a registered dietitian before he commenced his PhD
program he might have received ¾ year constructive service credit for the
former and 3 years credit for the latter.  However, as noted in the
advisory had he been a registered dietitian he would hot have been offered
a concurrent call to active duty.

3.  The regulatory wording "basic qualifying degree" may be misleading
because in some cases, including this one, the basic qualification is a
professional designation and not a "degree."  The basic qualification in
the applicant's case was the 9-month internship, which the applicant
completed while on active duty.  That a baccalaureate may have been a
prerequisite does not make it the "basic qualifying degree."

4.  Since he did not possess the basic qualification, the PhD did not add
"adjunctive skills to the primary specialty."  Furthermore, both the Army
regulation and the DOD instruction require that "The additional degree…must
contribute directly to performance in the anticipated position in the
Military Service concerned."    The applicant's anticipated positions were
as a dietetic intern and then as an entry-level dietitian.  The PhD did not
make him better qualified for those positions.

5.  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.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

_MM____  __LDS  __  __MJF__  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 for correction of the
records of the individual concerned.





                                  _       Melvin H. Meyer_______
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2004100211                            |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20041209                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |  . . .                                 |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          | DENY                                   |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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