DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
WJH: LCC
Docket No. 1521-09
19 Nov 09
Dear i
This is in reference to your application for correction of your
naval record pursuant to the provisions of 10 USC 1552 received
ain February 2009.
As you know, in 1987, the Board for Correction of Naval records
previously considered an application for a correction of your
record. Then, as now, you were seeking constructive service
eredit for the time you spent in the Armed Forces Health
Professional Scholarship program. Review of our records shows
that after considering your first application, the Board found
insufficient evidence of an error or injustice that would
warrant the relief you were seeking.
As you know, the Defense Officer Personnel Management Act,
Pub. L: No. 96-513, § 402, 94 Stat. 2835, 2904 (1980) (DOPMA)
became effective on 15 September 1981. Students enrolled in the
HPSP before that date who later became military medical officers
were credited with the time spent in medical school for the
computation of their basic pay (constructive service credit).
DOPMA ended that benefit as of 15 September 1981. Thus,
students entering HPSP after 15 September 1981 are not, under
the law, entitled to the constructive service credit benefit
enjoyed by their predecessors.
In the late 1980's, some officers, such as yourself, who entered
HPSP after 15 September 1981, submitted applications to this
Board seeking a change that would show that they entered HPSP
before 15 September 1981. If granted, such a change would
entitle them to the constructive service credit. Each of those
applications was different and each was considered on its own
merits. Among the factors the Board used to determine whether
Docket No. 1521-09
relief should be granted were: Was there reliable evidence that
a medical recruiter provided the applicant with erroneous
information during the recruiting process? Did the medical
recruiter provide specific (but erroneous) information
concerning constructive service credit? When did the
“recruiting” take place? When did the applicant execute the
HPSP scholarship agreement? How central a factor was
entitlement to HPSP to the applicant’s decision to accept
enrollment in the HPSP? Every case presented different fact
situations and each case was decided upon the factors specific
to that case.
In your case, in 1987, the Board found insufficient evidence of
an error or injustice that would warrant a change to entitle you
to constructive service credit. The Board noted that you did
not sign your scholarship agreement until 29 January 1982, well
after DOPMA became the law. Moreover, the documents you
submitted did not persuade the Board that your recruiter
provided you with erroneous information specific to the issue of
constructive service eredit or that the entitlement to such
eredit was a central factor in your.decision to accept
enrollment in the HPSP. Accordingly, your application was
denied.
You were advised, as all petitioners are, that if warranted,
your case could be reconsidered upon submission of new and
material evidence that would have a direct impact on the prior
decision. New evidence is defined as evidence not previously
considered by the Board and not reasonably avaiiable to you at
the time of your previous application. Evidence is considered
to-be “material” if it is “likely to have a substantial effect
on the outcome” of the prior Board’s decision.
In February 2009, you submitted evidence that NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 05077-07
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. Thus, under any reading of the law, the Petitioner both volunteered to enter...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075601C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and advisory opinion, it is concluded: The previous Board case cited by the applicant as precedent for granting his request was an error by the Board and cannot be applied to the applicant's case.
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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001051604C070420
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That he be granted 4 years’ constructive service credit for longevity pay purposes for his attendance at St. Louis School of Medicine, Class of 1987, from August 1983 to June 1987. As stated by the applicant, this Board granted constructive service credit to a number of USUHS graduates (Class of 1987) who were also 1983 graduates of the USMA. DISCUSSION : Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of...
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...