RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-00026

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be paid Additional Special Pay (ASP) in the amount of $15,000.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He has not been paid the ASP he was due at the time of his discharge, even though he left papers with his commander’s office.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a copy of a letter from Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS).

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant was appointed a major, Reserve of the Air Force (Medical Corps), on 28 Sep 00 and was voluntarily ordered to extended active duty on 5 Nov 00.

On 21 May 02, the applicant’s squadron commander recommended to the wing commander that the applicant be discharged under AFI 36-3206, Chapter 3, paragraph 3.6.4, for serious or recurring misconduct punishable by military authorities.  Specifically, the squadron commander indicated the following reasons for his actions:

		a.	On or about 20 and 21 May 01, the applicant failed to report for duty in the Anesthesia Clinic.  Additionally, on 21 May 01, he was unable to perform his duties as an anesthesiologist due to being intoxicated, with a blood alcohol content of .279.  As a result, he received a Letter of Reprimand (LOA).

		b.	On or about 12 Sep 01, he was unable to perform his duties as an anesthesiologist because he was drunk on duty.  As a result he received an Article 15, dated 9 Oct 01.

		c.	On or about 25 Apr 02, he used benzodiazepine, a controlled drug, that he had prescribed for himself in violation of AFI 44-119, paragraph A21.1.1.4.6, which prohibits practitioners from using controlled drugs without the written approval of the Medical Commander.  He received an LOA, dated 26 Apr 02, which was placed in his Unfavorable Information File (UIF).

On 21 May 02, the Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) reviewed the recommendation for discharge and found the preponderance of evidence supported the proposed action and the file was legally sufficient.  He recommended the discharge authority, the wing commander, initiate the discharge action because the applicant did not meet the standards required to serve as an officer.

That same day, the wing commander notified the applicant of his intent to initiate action against him requiring the member to show cause for retention on active duty.  The applicant was advised of his rights and options in the matter, to include tendering his resignation.

On 7 Jun 02, the applicant submitted his resignation under AFI 36-3207 in lieu of further administrative discharge proceedings under AFI 36-3206.

The wing commander recommended to the Commander, 21 AF, the applicant’s request for resignation be accepted and he be discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge.  On 3 Jul 02, the 21 AF commander concurred in this action.

On 2 Oct 02, the applicant was discharged from all appointments in the Air Force under the provisions of AFI 36-3206 (Misconduct) and was furnished a general (under honorable conditions) discharge.  He was credited with 1 year, 10 months, and 28 days of active service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPAMF2 recommended denial noting that upon entry to active duty, the applicant signed a four-year contract and received Multi-Year Special Pay (MSP) of $8,000 and Multi-Year Incentive Pay (MISP) of $29,000 on 5 Nov 00 and annually on 4 Nov 01.  He also received $15,000 in ASP on 5 Nov 00.  According to AFPC/DPAMF2, ASP contracts require the approval of the medical group commander and normally would be submitted on the annual date of approval or justification for disapproval by the commander.  It was then the applicant’s responsibility to provide an approved ASP contract to AFPC/DPAMF1.  The Human Resources Specialist-Special Pays, has indicated there was no record the applicant ever submitted an ASP contract on the annual date.  If the “papers” the applicant refers to in his application are the ASP contract, then the medical group commander would have to agree the member met standards and was entitled to ASP.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPAMF2 evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 6 Feb 04 for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office (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 error or injustice.  The applicant asserts that he left ”papers” in his commander’s office at the time of discharge and to date, he has not received his ASP bonus.  However, after thoroughly reviewing the applicant’s complete submission and the evidence of record, we are not persuaded the applicant has been a victim of either an error or injustice.  In this respect, it is noted ASP contracts are renewed on an annual basis and require approval by the medical group commander; however, considering the serious and recurring nature of the applicant’s misconduct commencing in May 01, it could be argued that had the applicant submitted the ASP paperwork, the medical group commander undoubtedly determined he did not meet standards and was not entitled to the annual ASP bonus in November 2001.  The applicant has not established to our satisfaction he was entitled to an ASP bonus in November 2001.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, 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 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-2004-00026 in Executive Session on 10 March 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 27 Dec 03, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, AFPC/DPAMF2, dated 30 Jan 04.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Feb 04.

					Panel Chair