RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  01-02448
		INDEX NUMBER: 128.06

		COUNSEL:  None

		HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Applicant requests retroactive payment of Medical Incentive Special Pay (ISP) for the period 1 Oct 00 through 30 Sep 01.

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She made a decision not to sign her ISP contract during the normal timeframe in November 2000 due to information she was given by the NCO in the Special Actions Section of her Military Personnel Flight (MPF), the supposed assigned subject matter expert, that the ISP contract could be “signed at any time.”

She was provided the actual ISP contract, but given no further information regarding procedural instructions, so she had to rely on the information given to her by the NCO.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_______________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant served on active duty as a doctor from 6 Jun 94 to 30 Aug 01, separating in the grade of major.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit C.

_______________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Superintendent, Medical Special Pays Branch, AFPC/DPAMF1, evaluated this application and recommends denial of the applicant’s request.

Information on Health Profession Special Pays is provided to servicing MPFs through an MPF memorandum (MPFM) (FY01 program was announced through MPFM 00-36, 5 Oct 00) and to all Air Force physicians through their Medical Treatment Facility Commander (HQ AFPC Memorandum, 19 Sep 00).  The program announcement and all medical special pay contracts are posted on the HQ AFPC website.

The MPFM and HQ AFPC Memorandum included the statements “Agreements to be effective 1 Oct 00 must be received by this office NLT 30 Nov 00.  Agreements signed after 30 Nov 00 will be effective the date they are signed.”

The applicant contacted AFPC/DPAMF1 to see if she could receive ISP retroactively to 1 Oct 00.  She was advised that ISP agreements are not backdated unless the individual can show administrative oversight.  The applicant stated to the representative from AFPC/DPAMF1 that at the time she should have completed her ISP agreement, she was applying to residency programs and if accepted to a civilian program, had every intention of separating on her DOS.  The applicant’s own statements to the AFPC/DPAMF1 representative do not demonstrate administrative oversight.

Additionally, ISP is used by the Air Force as a retention tool and requires a 12-month commitment from the individual.  The applicant’s DOS is 30 Aug 01 so she did not possess adequate retainability to receive ISP.

The information concerning the required submission date was clearly available to the applicant.  Additionally, ISP is used as a retention tool and because the applicant’s stated intent was to separate if accepted in a civilian residency program, her request for retroactive payment should be denied.

The complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant responded to the advisory opinion and again reiterated that the basis of her request is that she was provided wrong information regarding the time period for signing the ISP contract.  She states that when she received an e-mail from AFPC/DPAMF1 advising her that the ISP could not be backdated, she immediately contacted the Special Actions NCO in her MPF to find out what needed to be done.  She states that she was told to ask about a “retro-ISP.”  In support of this contention she provides an e-mail with a handwritten note she claims was written by the NCO in Special Actions advising her of this.

The applicant’s complete response, with attachment, is at Exhibit E.

_______________________________________________________________

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.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case.  The preponderance of evidence appears to indicate that the applicant was miscounseled by a NCO in the MPF.  While this is indeed regrettable, our review of the totality of circumstances involved in the case does not convince us that she has been the victim of an error or injustice.  We note that in three of the statements of support provided by her, reference is made to physicians being referred to the AFPC website for information on the ISP.  The applicant makes no mention of whether she was aware of or has used this source since it contains complete and accurate information on the ISP.  Further, we note that the statement from her squadron commander fails to address what actions were taken by her chain of command to inform physicians on requirements of the ISP as stipulated in the 19 Sep 00 Memorandum put out by the Medical Services Officer Management Division at the Air Force Personnel Center.  Rather, he states that “despite the possible procedural errors and regardless of reasons for why she never received this payment, I am in support of corrective action for her to be properly paid for the services that she provided during this time period…”  His view seems to contradict the purpose of the ISP, i.e., as a retention incentive.  It appears to the Board that the applicant’s problems with ISP were caused primarily by her efforts to remain eligible for ISP as well as maintaining maximum flexibility to separate before or on her established DOS should the options she was pursuing come through.  In view of the above findings, we believe that sufficient sources, with correct information regarding the ISP, were available to the applicant; therefore, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_______________________________________________________________

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 6 November 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 21 Aug 01, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPAMF1, dated 25 Sep 01,
                w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 12 Oct 01.
    Exhibit E.  Memorandum, Applicant, dated 20 Oct 01, w/atch.