DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNE
X
WASHINGTON DC 20370-510
0
LCC:ddj
Docket No: 1432-01
24 July 2001
This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the
provisions of title 10 of the United States Code, section 1552.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive
session, considered your application on 24 July 2001. Your allegations of error and injustice
were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the
proceedings of this Board. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your
application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and
applicable statutes, regulations and policies.
After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the
evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or
injustice.
The Defense Officer Personnel Management Act (DOPMA) effective 15 September 1981, is the
controlling legislation and expressly precludes granting constructive service credit for pay.
Consequently it would be contrary to both the spirit and clear intent of the law to grant your
request.
As to the contention that you were misled by erroneous advise during recruitment as to
constructive service credit, the Board was not convinced that the miscounseling
motivating factor in your decision to accept a scholarship. The Board also considered its
previous action of granting relief to the USUHS students in the Class of 1986 and those student
accepting a scholarship in the Armed Forces Health Professions Scholarship Program who
graduated from medical school in 1986 and concluded that the unique circumstances surrounding
those petitions were such that relief should be granted, in that, they were recruited during the
1981 and early 1982 timeframe and commenced school in 1982. You did not start medical
school until August 1983.
The Air Force and Army correction boards had previously granted
relief to Air Force and Army personnel in the USUHS Class of 1986, and not to do so for Navy
personnel would have resulted in an inequity. The Army board also granted relief to scholarship
students who graduated in 1986 to create parity.
was_.a principal
Docket No. 1432-01
It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that favorable action cannot be taken.
You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon submission of new and material
evidence or other matter not previously considered by the Board. In this regard, it is important
to keep in mind that a presumption of regularity attaches to all official records.
when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to
demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.
Consequently,
Sincerely,
W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04062-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 June 2001. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002077586C070215
He also points out that certain other members of the USUHS Class of 1987 were granted constructive service credit. He was commissioned a Second Lieutenant, Corps of Engineers, upon graduation from the USMA on 6 June 1979. 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...
However, members of this class, as well as the Classes of 1986 and 1987, received documented miscounseling concerning the DOPMA changes. Notwithstanding the clear and accurate contract applicants signed, the Bulletin’s misinformation, coupled with specific instances of miscounseling by various USUHS and United States Air Force Academy (USAFA) officials, led this Board to grant constructive credit relief en bloc to the Classes of 1985 and 1986 – but not to the Class of 1987. The only...
However, members of this class, as well as the Classes of 1986 and 1987, received documented miscounseling concerning the DOPMA changes. AFPC/JA further states that concerning the first changed factors, as stated above, the Board has granted several USUHS Class of 1987 members constructive credit based on miscounseling/presumptive evidence of miscounseling and/or parity within their peer group. In requesting reconsideration, applicant further contends that despite his evidence that...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1997-02571A
However, members of this class, as well as the Classes of 1986 and 1987, received documented miscounseling concerning the DOPMA changes. AFPC/JA further states that concerning the first changed factors, as stated above, the Board has granted several USUHS Class of 1987 members constructive credit based on miscounseling/presumptive evidence of miscounseling and/or parity within their peer group. In requesting reconsideration, applicant further contends that despite his evidence that...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001061443C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. As stated by the applicant, this Board reconsidered the requests of 14 USUHS graduates (Class of 1987) who were seeking 4 years' constructive service credit for attendance at USUHS and had been previously denied. In this letter, the former USMA Surgeon stated unequivocally that he told prospective USUHS students from the USMA Class of 1983 that they would receive...
___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: While at the United States Air Force Academy (USAFA), he was counseled that he would receive four years of constructive service credit upon graduating from USUHS; that he relied on this counseling in making his decision to attend USUHS; and, that had he known of a change in constructive service policy prior to attending medical school, he probably would have foregone this opportunity and remained in...
___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: While at the United States Air Force Academy (USAFA), he was counseled that he would receive four years of constructive service credit upon graduating from USUHS; that he relied on this counseling in making his decision to attend USUHS; and, that had he known of a change in constructive service policy prior to attending medical school, he probably would have foregone this opportunity and remained in...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1986-04014
___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: While at the United States Air Force Academy (USAFA), he was counseled that he would receive four years of constructive service credit upon graduating from USUHS; that he relied on this counseling in making his decision to attend USUHS; and, that had he known of a change in constructive service policy prior to attending medical school, he probably would have foregone this opportunity and remained in...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1986-04015
___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: While at the United States Air Force Academy (USAFA), he was counseled that he would receive four years of constructive service credit upon graduating from USUHS; that he relied on this counseling in making his decision to attend USUHS; and, that had he known of a change in constructive service policy prior to attending medical school, he probably would have foregone this opportunity and remained in...