RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00890
		INDEX CODE:  129.01

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED: YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be given constructive credit for the work he accomplished on his PHD.  

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He should be awarded constructive credit for his PHD in molecular nutrition.  He states that this area of study has a direct link to the field of pathology and subsequently his job responsibilities.  He believes that had he known that he could have submitted statements prior to his commissioning, requesting entry in a higher grade, it would have been granted.  Applicant feels he qualifies for the constructive credit under the guidelines specified in Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2005, Table 2.7, Rule 26.

In support of his appeal, applicant has provided a copy of AFI 36-2005, two personal statements, and a letter of support from his commander.

His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered the Regular Air Force on 11 October 2002 as a Captain (0-3) as a result of receiving constructive credit for his education.  He is currently a staff pathologist at the XXth Medical Group, Andrews AFB, MD.  He is serving in the grade of Captain and has a date of separation (DOS) of 12 November 2005.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPAME reviewed this application and recommends denial.  DPAME states that not all PhD’s are appropriate for constructive credit.  DPAME notes AFI 36-2005, Table 2.7, Rule 26 and admits that it does provide some latitude on a case-by-case basis for the award of constructive credit but is clear that in order for education to be creditable it must add adjunctive skills to the primary specialty and must contribute directly to performance in the specialty in which the applicant is appointed.  In the initial review of the application for constructive credit, the application was judged as not contributing directly to the performance of a pathologist and that it was unclear as to whether or not the degree added adjunctive skills for a pathologist.  The original application was awarded constructive credit that allowed the applicant to enter the Regular Air Force as a Captain, but did not then, nor does it now, rise to the level required to award constructive credit that would’ve allowed the applicant to enter active duty as a major.

DPAME’s complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit B.

AFPC/DPPAOR reviewed this application and defers to the AFPC/DPAME evaluation.  DPPAOR’s evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 23 May 2003 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

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 Force offices of primary responsibility, in particular the advisory from AFPC/DPAME which indicated that the applicant was awarded constructive credit that allowed him to enter the Air Force as a captain, but that the degree in question did not meet the requirements for additional constructive service credit to allow him to enter active duty as a major.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, 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 issue(s) involved.  Hence, 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 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-00890 in Executive Session on 17 July 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 20 Feb 03, w/atchs. 
    Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPAME, dated 8 Apr 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAOR, dated 1 May 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 May 03.

                                   
                                   Panel Chair