DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX ;
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 LCC:ddj
Docket No: 4062-01
12 June 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 12 June 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 Board determined that the Defense Officer Personnel Management Act (DOPMA), effective
15 September 1981, is the controlling legislation and precludes granting constructive service
credit for pay. The Board further concluded that to grant your request would be contrary to
both the spirit and clear intent of the law.
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 was a principal
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’ students 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. 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.
Docket No. 4062-01
Accordingly, your application has been denied. The names and votes of the members of the
panel will be furnished upon request.
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. Consequently,
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.
Sincerely,
W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 01432-01
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. 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...
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...
___________________________________________________________________ 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...
___________________________________________________________________ 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...
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...