RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  01-02043
		INDEX CODE:  113.04

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) date for his civilian sponsored fellowship training be changed from 5 May 05 to 5 May 03.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He believes that the contractual process in his case was ambiguous, both factually and materially.  He signed an official Air Force ADSC commitment statement but did so with  both limited and incorrect knowledge, which at the time he believed was sufficient.  He believes his ADSC should end two years earlier than the Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC) believes it should.  This has cost him four to eight thousand dollars in multi-year special pay (MSP).

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided an expanded statement, an extract from AFI 36-2107, his ADSC statement, and other documents associated with the matter under review.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Medical Service Officer Management Division, AFPC/DPAMF2  provided an advisory opinion from the Physician Education Branch (AFPC/DPAME), who reviewed this application and recommended denial.  DPAME noted that the applicant was sponsored through the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (USUHS) from 1986-1990, resulting in a seven-year commitment.  He was selected by the 1989 Graduate Medical Education Selection Board (GMESB) for a Transitional Year program at Wilford Hall Medical Center (WHMC) from 1990-1991, which he started upon completing medical school.  From 1991 to 1993 he served in the field, paying off two years of his seven-year USUHS ADSC.  The 1992 GMESB selected member for his Ophthalmology residency training program at WHMC from 1993-1996.  The Ophthalmology consultant requested a special selection board, which convened at AFPC, to allow the applicant to enter the civilian match and secure a program beginning 1 Jul 96.  The board convened on 3 Oct 95, and the applicant was selected for civilian sponsorship in Retina/Uveitis from 1996-1998.  In accordance with his 1986 USUHS contract, he incurred a two-year consecutive obligation for the civilian sponsored fellowship.  He was provided written notification from HQ AFPC/DPAME on 5 Oct 95 to enter training, which included his ADSC statement indicating a two-year consecutive obligation associated with the training.  He provided DPAME with written acknowledgement on 20 Oct 95, attaching his signed ADSC statement accepting the fellowship and the ADSC associated with the training.

According to DPAME, Title 10 USC and Department of Defense Instruction (DODI) 6000.12 and AFR 36-51 and the applicant’s 1986 USUHS contract govern his ADSC.  AFR 36-51, dated 23 May 86, was in effect when the applicant signed his USUHS contract.  He indicated the regulations had changed from AFR to AFI 36-107; however, the change in regulatory guidance had no affect on his ADSC.  The applicant’s initial USUHS contract would govern any ADSC associated with educational programs regardless of the time he actually enters training.  The current USUHS contract is different.  It states, “Current directives in place at the time of training will determine applicable ADSC.”  For current USUHS students, AFI 36-2107 would determine a selectee’s ADSC because the contract is silent regarding ADSC associated with training.  In the applicant’s case, the contract is clear in that a year for year consecutive obligation is incurred for training in a civilian institution.

DPAME also noted that current and past regulatory guidance is that obligation for civilian sponsorship is always served consecutively to any pre-existing ADSC.  The applicant incurred no additional ADSC for training in a military facility for his Ophthalmology training from 1993-1996 based on his 1986 USUHS contract.  Current directives indicate a member completing the identical training program today would incur a three-year ADSC.

According to DPAME, the applicant’s ADSC was calculated correctly, and written notification was provided to him.  He alleges his miscounseling occurred as a result of regulatory changes.  Actually, the regulation he was provided did indicate a consecutive obligation for civilian sponsored training, although his ADSC is governed by the language in his contract.  If he felt that there was a discrepancy or conflicting information, he could have contacted DPAME for clarification.  The rules in effect at the time an individual signs his contract should be binding on both the Air Force and the individual.  By signing the contract and his active duty service commitment statements, he indicated that he was fully aware of these rules and of the commitments that he was making for active duty service.  Since the applicant signed his ADSC statement indicating a two-year consecutive ADSC, his request has no merit.  In 1995, he knew of the ADSC until 2005.  He accepted this date as a condition for sponsorship for a fellowship.  He is entitled to apply for MSP at this time.  The correct calculation would put his ADSC to May 2009, if he were to sign a four-year MSP contract.  This would be a fair and consistent application of the statutes that govern his ADSCs.  In DPAME’s view, there was adequate documentation that he was correctly counseled about the ADSC for his fellowship.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPAME evaluation and attachments are attached to the AFPC/DPAMF2 memorandum, which is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In his response, the applicant indicated that he believes that the complications surrounding his ADSC contract are unique to his particular situation and cannot be generalized.  The entire process of opening a training slot for his particular subspecialty was unusually sudden and unexpected.  He had very little time to prepare an application for the USAF Board, which convened exceptionally early that year at the behest of a flag officer.  This left little time to travel for interviews, state licensing processes, application for Drug Enforcement Agency authorization, planning for a permanent change of station (PCS), and lengthy credential procedures.  In addition, he had to maintain a 70 hour work week and the rigors of a surgical residency program.  This was critically important at the time, thus, he relied heavily on the counsel of the staff and a careful reading of the regulation prior to ever seeing the ADSC statement.  Having spoken to several of his colleagues that have undergone similar training, he is gratified to learn that the process has become much smoother and that young physicians in training are receiving careful and thorough counseling before they commit to further training on behalf of the USAF.

Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.  The applicant's complete submission was thoroughly reviewed and his contentions were duly noted.  However, we do not find the applicant’s assertions or the documentation submitted in support of his appeal sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR).  In our view, the language of the ADSC contract that the applicant signed was unambiguous.  It clearly indicated that he would incur a two-year consecutive obligation associated with his training.  Therefore, in the absence of clear-cut evidence that the applicant’s ADSC date was erroneous, we agree with the recommendation of the OPR and adopt their rationale as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of establishing that he has suffered either an error or an injustice.  Accordingly, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with this application.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 8 Nov 01, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 16 Jul 01, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPAMF2, dated 5 Sep 01, w/atchs.

    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 14 Sep 01.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, applicant, undated.