RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-01821
		INDEX CODE:  102.08

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His pay date and active duty service date be corrected to accurately reflect a longevity of 24 years for both military pay and service credit.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He discovered in April 2002 that he would not be receiving longevity credit for the four years he spent while assigned at the Uniformed Services University at Bethesda, MD.  He believes this determination to be unjust and contrary to the information he received in 1984, before committing to the career path he set upon.

Other reasons the applicant believes the records to be in error or unjust and the evidence submitted in support of the appeal are at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 20 May 1984, the applicant was appointed a second lieutenant, Reserve of the Air Force, Medical Service Corps (MSC), and was voluntarily ordered to extended active duty on 1 August 1984 for assignment to the Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences.  At that time, he was credited with prior active duty enlisted service in the Regular Air Force from 10 October 1975 to 9 August 1981.  He then enlisted in the Air Force Reserve on 23 September 1981 for a period of 8 years with assignment to the Obligated Reserve Section and was enrolled as a student in the Air Force Reserve Officer Training Program (AFROTC), College Scholarship Program.

On 12 May 1988, the applicant was appointed a captain, Regular Air Force (Medical Corps) and entered active duty on that same date.  In a Statement of Service, prepared on 8 August 1988, it was indicated the applicant’s Total Active Federal Commissioned Service Date was 12 May 1988, his Total Federal Commissioned Service Date was 20 May 1984, his Total Active Federal Military Service Date was 12 July 1982, and his Pay date was 18 April 1982.  In a computation of service creditable under 10 USC 1405, dated 3 August 2000, it was indicated that the applicant was not entitled to credit for the period 20 May 1984 to 11 May 1988 and that his 1405 service date was 8 July 1982.

The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of lieutenant colonel, having been promoted to that grade with an effective date and a date of rank of 12 May 2000.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPAOR states that based on governing directives, the applicant’s pay date was computed correctly; therefore, they recommend his request be denied.  Applicant was not given pay credit for the period 20 May 1984 to 11 May 1988, time spent in USUHS per Title 10 USC Section 2126 which states “service not creditable while a member of the program shall not be counted (1) in determining eligibility for retirement other than by reason of a physical disability incurred while on active duty as a member of the program; or (2) in computing years of service creditable under section 205 of title 37.”  Upon retirement applicant will be given additional 1405 multiplier credit of 3 years 11 months and 22 days for time spent in USUHS.  If the decision is to grant the relief sought, DPPAOR stated that his pay date would be 26 April 1978.  A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states that he was commissioned a second lieutenant on 20 May 1984 as documented, but his commission was not as an MSC for the purpose of attending USUHS.  He received the Reserve commission after completing an AFROTC program at the University of Hawaii.  It was only after matriculating to USUHS in August 1984, that his commission was changed to an MSC category.  He further states that it was his belief in 1984, and remained so, that if achieving twenty years service, he would be given service credit for the years spent at USUHS.  This was the understanding he had upon receiving briefings on the subject at the school.  It was not until this spring, after having attained twenty years’ longevity, when he learned from AFPC the time would only count if he retired.  Hence, he now understands that he could retire with twenty-four years’ service or remain on active duty with twenty years.

His active duty service commitment to the Air Force is currently one year for reassignment (July 2003), and one year for an ISP/MSP contract (September 2003).  But there are many reasons beyond the contractual that must go into making a decision to remain or retire from the Air Force.  He respectfully asks the Board to consider his case and to recognize the sincerity of his perception and expectation.  It is his appeal to have his pay date changed to 26 April 1978.

On 1 November 2002, in an effort to further portray the element of ambivalence that existed on the matter of longevity credit, the applicant provided a portion of the University Bulletin from 1984 and a 25 April 1985 letter on retired and longevity pay from the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manpower, Installations, and Logistics.  The narrative depicts time as a medical student as active duty, but states it neither counts in determining eligibility nor is creditable for computing retired pay once retirement eligibility has been established.  This subject was addressed numerous times by a civilian lawyer, assigned to USUHS at the time.  The Assistant Secretary of Defense’s letter clarified the issue of crediting the four years at USUHS for computation of retired pay, citing public law.  The letter in paragraph three addresses the separate issue of whether the four years as a student should be credited for basic longevity pay.  In some iteration of this ongoing discussion, it is his recollection that the concept of achieving twenty years resulting in four years credit for retirement, was perceived (at least by him) as meaning awarding these same years towards longevity should the member choose to remain on active duty.

Whether this perception was the product of an ambivalent communicator or a befuddled receiver is the question put before the Board.

The applicant’s responses, with attachments, and additional information are 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 error or injustice.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Staff and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  We are aware that, normally, the USUHS contract the applicant signed prior to entering the program sets forth information relating to service credit.  We requested a copy of the applicant’s contract be secured for our review and were advised that a copy of the document could not be located.  This Board has always operated under the principle that regularity is presumed in the conduct of actions by Air Force officials and that the burden for providing a showing of error or injustice rests with the party making such claims ‑‑ the applicant.  The law specifically precludes the award of the service credit the applicant seeks in this appeal and, other than his own assertions, he has provided no evidence showing he was miscounseled or treated differently from other similarly situated members who enter and graduated from USUHS at the same time he did.  Accordingly, in view of the above, the applicant’s request is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of 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 on 23 January 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 May 02, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAOR, dated 3 Aug 02, w/atchs.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 6 Sep 02.
   Exhibit E.  Applicant’s Letter, dated 18 Sep 02, w/atchs.

                                   
                                   Panel Chair