RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        14 September 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060002316


      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. Edmund P. Mercanti            |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Eric N. Andersen              |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Rose M. Lys                   |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Richard O. Murphy             |     |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 that he be authorized to keep all the money that
he was originally entitled to under the Health Professional Loan Repayment
(HPLR) program.  He requests that the Army inform Sallie Mae that his past
due and overdue payments were not his fault and that the Army pay all
penalties and interest that accrued as a result of the late payments.  He
requests that he be paid the full bonus entitlement for which he
contracted.  And he requests that the medical bills he incurred as a result
of his line of duty injury be paid and that he be given incapacitation pay.

2.  The applicant states that he filed his initial application with the
ABCMR over a year ago.  He adds that he has now been waiting for his bonus
for over 5 years and “I fully expect that your office request DFAS to pay
this immediately.”

3.  The applicant provides a redacted Inspector General Action Request
(IGAR).

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant was commissioned as a captain, Medical Corps, US Army
Reserve, on 23 December 1999.  In conjunction with his commission, the
applicant completed HPLR and bonus addenda.  In the HPLR addendum it was
stated that if he terminated his HPLR agreement prior to his anniversary
date to participate in the Specialized Training Assistance Program, he
would be entitled to a prorated amount for the number of months served
prior to his anniversary date.

2.  The HPLR addendum also advised the applicant that payments would become
due on each anniversary date of his assignment to a TPU, and that his
entitlement to payments under the HPLR program would terminate if he was
transferred to a non-critical specialty or if he was separated from his
TPU.

3.  In the applicant’s bonus addendum it was stated that his bonus
entitlement would terminate if he was transferred to an ineligible
specialty or if he was separated from his troop program unit (TPU).

4.  On 25 February 2001, the applicant was treated for severe pain in both
knees.  The pain started while the applicant was on a rucksack march.

5.  On 11 April 2002, the United States Army Recruiting Command (USAREC)
sent a memorandum to the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1.  In that memorandum it
was stated that the applicant was erroneously told that he could receive a
bonus and the HPLR at the same time.  It was also stated that the applicant
was assigned to a non-critical specialty position, which made him
ineligible for either incentive program.  The USAREC recommended that the
applicant be allowed to receive and retain all payments authorized or paid
under his HPLR and bonus addenda beginning in March 2001, that the current
amendment to his contractual service obligation be honored, and that the
applicant be transferred to a valid bonus eligible position.

6.  On 2 March 2004, the applicant’s unit’s higher headquarters informed
the applicant that he had been discharged from the Army with severance pay
on orders dated 9 January 2004, effective 6 February 2004.  Because of that
discharge, he was not entitled to his HPLR anniversary payment.

7.  On 6 June 2004, the applicant’s higher headquarters issued orders
discharging the applicant effective 6 February 2004, citing Army Regulation

135-175 as authority.

8.  On 2 June 2005, the USAREC stated in a memorandum that the applicant
was incorrectly told by his recruiter that both the bonus and HPLR would be
paid simultaneously.  The USAREC also stated that an exception to policy
was granted by HQDA G-1 to pay the applicant both the bonus and HPLR.

9.  On 26 August 2005, the applicant’s higher headquarters’ discharge
orders were amended to show an effective date of 2 March 2004.

10.  On 31 October 2005, an IGAR was completed on the applicant’s
complaints.  The IG concluded that:

      a.  the applicant met his service and contractual obligation as
required and, therefore, should receive the full HPLR entitled for which he
contracted.

      b.  the applicant did not receive his HPLR anniversary payments in a
timely manner.

      c.  the applicant was erroneously told that he could receive his
bonus and HPLR simultaneously and, therefore, should be given the full
bonus for which he contracted.

      d.  the applicant did not receive due process for his incapacitation
pay claim since a formal line of duty investigation was required which was
never completed.

11.  The IGAR chronicled the actions taken by the IG to determine the
validity of the applicant’s complaints.  In the IGAR it was stated that:

      a.  the line of duty status of the applicant’s disability was
questionable and the applicant could not provide documents to expedite the
case.  A formal line of duty investigation was required since his
disability appeared to be from a pre-existing medical condition.

      b.  the applicant was uncooperative in providing the documentation to
substantiate his entitlement to incapacitation pay.  The applicant could
only substantiate that he was off work for half days, which did not qualify
for incapacitation pay.

      c.  the area of concentration for the position to which the applicant
was assigned was never eligible for any enlistment incentives.

      d.  officers could not receive two enlistment incentives
simultaneously.  However, officers are given the option as to the order in
which the incentives are implemented when more than one incentive is
authorized.

      e.  the applicant had received $40,000 in HPLR and had been paid a
$10,000 increment to his bonus.  However, the second $10,000 increment to
his bonus was recouped because the applicant had requested his contract be
terminated so that he could start HPLR payments.  The applicant would have
been eligible for a final HPLR payment in March 2004 if he had not been
discharged prior to his anniversary date.  In addition, the exception to
policy to pay the applicant HPLR without him being in an incentive eligible
position was only valid for the years 2002 and 2003.

      f.  despite the problems involved, the applicant received his final
HPLR installment.

12.  Army Regulation 135-381 provides the standards of eligibility for
medical care, continuation of pay (incapacitation pay) and physical
disability separation for reservists and guardsmen.  Paragraph 4-1 states
that to be eligible for incapacitation pay reservists and guardsmen must be
unable to perform normal military duty or show a loss of nonmilitary income
for certain periods of time, the individual must be disabled “while so
employed”, and the disabling condition must have been incurred or
aggravated while in a duty or travel status.  .  Entitlement to
incapacitation pay is limited to 6 months unless the Secretary of the Army
finds that it is clearly in the interest of fairness and equity to extend
the incapacitation pay.  Only in the most meritorious cases will
incapacitation pay be extended past the 6-month limitation.

13.  Army Regulation 40-400, Patient Administration, paragraph 10–1, for
whom authorized, states that when appropriate care cannot be provided by
military medical treatment facilities (MTFs), care from civilian sources
may be authorized, subject to certain limitations.  Provisions of this
chapter apply to Soldiers who are assigned to a remote location or
traveling in areas where there is no MTF, other Federal MTF, or TRICARE.

14.  Army Regulation 40-400, paragraph 10–6, authorization for civilian
medical care, states that personnel will not obtain care from civilian
agencies without obtaining prior authorization from the designated
approving authority.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  By the documentation submitted, it is unclear exactly how much the
applicant has been paid in bonus and HPLR installment payments.

2.  According to the IG, the applicant received his final HPLR installment
payment, and had been given an exception to policy to receive both the
bonus and HPLR installment payments.  While the IG indicated that one bonus
installment had been recouped, it would appear the reason for the
recoupment was negated by the G-1 exception to policy.  As such, in the
absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that the applicant
has been authorized and paid all incentives which he was initially
promised.

3.  The ABCMR is empowered to correct errors or injustices in military
records.  Therefore, it is beyond the authority of the ABCMR to issue
letters of apology or to direct that penalties and accrued interest be
paid.

4.  As for incapacitation pay, the IG stated that the applicant had not
submitted the paperwork necessary to support the incapacitation pay claim
submitted by his unit.  In his submission to the ABCMR, the applicant did
not submit any documentation to show that he was unable to work his
civilian job for any period of time or that he was unable to perform his
normal military duties.  As such, there is insufficient evidence in which
to award him incapacitation pay.





5.  The applicant has not submitted any civilian medical bills to be
considered by the ABCMR.  However, even if he had, he has not submitted any
documentation to show that the medical bills were for emergency treatment
or that he had prior approval to obtain civilian medical treatment by his
servicing Medical Department Activity.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

____rom_  ____rml__  ___ena_____  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.





                                  _____Eric N. Andersen__________
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060002316                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20090914                                |
|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.       |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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