DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
LCC
Docket No. 5077-07
24 Sep 08
Dear Se,
A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive
session, considered your application on 4 August 2008. A
majority of the Board (by a 2/1 vote) recommended that your
naval records be corrected as set forth in the attached
report dated 10 September 2008. In accordance with
current regulations, the designated representative
of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Manpower and
Reserve Affairs conducted an independent review of
the Board's proceedings and by his memorandum of
18 September 2008 disapproved the panel’s recommended
action. A copy of the designated representative's
memorandum is also attached.
You are advised that reconsideration of your case will be
granted only upon the presentation of new and material
evidence not previously considered by the Board and then,
only upon the recommendation of the Board as approved by
the Assistant Secretary.
It is regretted that a more favorable reply cannot be made.
Sincerely,
\anQ
W. DEAN PF
Executive rector
Enclosures
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY
(MANPOWER AND RESERVE AFFAIRS)
1000 NAVY PENTAGON
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20350-1000
September 18, 2008
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF
NAVAL RECORDS
Subj: BCNR PETITION OF
The recommendation of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, dated September 10,
2008, is disapproved.
I have considered this petition under the provisions of 10 U.S.C. § 1552 and determined
that the Petitioner’s request does not warrant the relief recommended. Specifically, the
Petitioner is not entitled to have his record corrected to show he is entitled to four years
constructive service credit (CSC) for his Pay Entry Base Date (PEBD) for completion of medical
school.
The record shows that Congress passed the Defense Officer Personnel Management Act
(DOPMA) in 1980 and that the law became effective on September 15, 1981. As of that date,
medical officers were no longer entitled to receive CSC for time spent in medical school for the
computation of their basic pay. However, DOPMA included a “grandfather” provision that
preserved or “saved” the CSC benefit to medical school students who were already enrolled in
the Armed Forces Health Professionals Scholarship Program (AFHPSP) on the effective date of
DOPMA. The Petitioner volunteered to participate in the AFHSP scholarship program by
signing an AFHPSP scholarship agreement on August 30, 1982, and accepted his appointment as
an Ensign thereby entering AFHPSP on January 17, 1983. Thus, under any reading of the law,
the Petitioner both volunteered to enter and actually entered the scholarship program after the
effective date of DOPMA and, so, is not entitled to CSC.
The Petitioner alleges that, as a matter of equity, he should receive CSC despite not being
covered by the “grandfather” provision because he was misled by his Navy Medical Program
recruiter into believing he would receive CSC as part of his agreement, pointing to outdated
recruiting materials and information that did not reflect the DOPMA changes. A majority of the
Board agreed with the Petitioner citing an August 2002 statement from his recruiter that purports
to corroborate the Petitioner’s claim that he was misled. The recruiter’s statement is the only
addition to the record he presented supporting his 1997 petition on this same claim that the Board
denied. I disagree with the majority.
The Board’s minority opinion makes several persuasive points. The Petitioner neither
volunteered for nor entered the AFHPSP scholarship program until after the effective date of
DOPMA. According to his own application, the Petitioner was aware as early as September
1994 that his time in the AFHPSP was not CSC creditable, yet there is no evidence he sought
relief until March 1997. The Board denied that application because it lacked any recruiter
corroboration of his claim that he had been misinformed about CSC. To cure that defect, the
Petitioner submitted with his present application the August 2002 statement from his recruiter.
However, this statement lacks sufficient indicia of reliability in that the recruiter purports to
recall events from 20-21 years earlier and the recruiter qualifies her statement, “to the best of my
recollection.” It is also noteworthy that the statement was prepared in August 2002 but not
submitted to the Board until June 2007, and the Petitioner gives no explanation for the lapse in
time between the statement’s preparation and its submission. Other cases where the Board
granted CSC credit date back over a decade and included corroborating statements that were
more contemporaneous with relevant events.
The requested and recommended relief is denied.
Oo
RWS CAL
ROBERT T. CALI
Assistant General Counsel
(Manpower and Reserve Affairs)
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-1986-04015FORMAL
Similarly, the applicant has recast his previously rejected argument regarding his "miscounseling" by former HPAC Chairmen, Colonel C and Lt Col W. In support, the applicant asserts that five 1983 U.S. Air Force Academy (USAFA) graduates who subsequently graduated from the USUHS 1987 Class were granted relief by the AFBCMR based on the erroneous counseling by Colonel C and Lt Col W. As it regards Colonel C, the Board has previously concluded that there was "no showing of misinformation by...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 05271-06
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 DirectorEnclosure DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVY PERSONNEL COMMAND5720 INTEGRITY DRIVEMILLINGTON TN 38055-0000 5420P00J1/0893 28 Jul 2006From: Office of Legal Counsel (Pers-00J1) To: Executive Director, Board for Correction for Naval RecordsVia: Assistant for BCNR Matters,...
On 7 April 1997, the applicant again requested reconsideration based on the fact that the Board had granted several cases that he believed to be similar to his case (Exhibit CC with Attachments). In their view, the former HPAC chairman’s letter does not contain any evidence or information that was not known and available to the applicant when he filed his original application in 1985. "; the latter applicant.
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 the Air Force as a line officer. In an application to the AFBCMR,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080014686
The applicant requests he be granted constructive service credit (CSC) for his Master of Science (MS) degree in Pharmacology, with a corresponding correction to his date of rank as a captain. The opinion cites Department of Defense (DOD) Instruction 6000.13 stating, " credit for masters and doctorate degrees in a health profession other than medicine and dentistry, whether it is the primary degree or an additional advanced degree, shall be awarded based on actual full-time equivalent...
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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090019411
The applicant requests a conditional release from the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) so she may serve the remainder of her Armed Forces Health Professions Scholarship Program (AFHPSP) contractual obligation on active duty in the Commissioned Corps of the U.S. Public Health Service (USPHS). The applicant's records show she was commissioned a second lieutenant in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) on 7 May 2003. b. Paragraph 6-6 states that an obligated officer who has performed his or her...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01290
The Air Force Personnel Centers (AFPCs) clear policy on this rule has been to award service credit to officers for medical school prep courses completed during periods of prior active commissioned service. If AFPC had adopted the JA analysis in 2013, AFPC would never have granted this kind of service credit to anyone. We also do not find the applicant is entitled to additional constructive service credit for medical school preparation courses. As noted by AFPC/JA, these courses were...
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 | CY2010 | 20100013333
The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the rank of captain. A second advisory opinion was obtained from the Chief, Officer Promotions, U.S. Army Human Resources Command stating the applicant's active date of rank (ADOR) should be the date of his Oath of Office, 11 May 2007. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by granting him an additional month of CSC and amending his date of rank to captain to 11...