RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:	BC-2008-01391 INDEX CODE:	102.08
COUNSEL:	NONE HEARING DESIRED:	YES

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Applicant requests that he receive credit for active duty performed while enrolled in the Armed Forces Health Professions Scholarship and Financial Assistance Program (HPSP) or in the alternative, he be returned to active duty in the grade of colonel (0-6) with a possible assignment to Kirtland AFB, NM.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The dates on his original retirement orders, which had been reviewed and verified multiple times prior to his actual retirement were changed by the Defense Finance & Accounting Service (DFAS). Had he suspected that his dates were incorrect, he would have remained on active duty to secure his calculated retirement.

In support of his application, the applicant provides a personal letter, a copy of DFAS-CL form 7220/148, Retiree Account Statement, a copy of Special Orders AC-015852, and copies of DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 30 March 1987, the applicant signed a contract, and agreed to participate in the Armed Forces Health Professions Scholarship Program (AFHPSP).

On 15 May 1987, he was enrolled as a student in the Air Force Reserve Officer Training Program (AFROTC), College Scholarship Program.

A corrected Statement of Service, prepared on 19 March 2007, indicated the applicant was a student (AFHPSP) from 10 August 1987 to 6 April 1991 and that AFHPSP was not creditable for pay. His Total Active Federal Commissioned Service Date was 14 June 1991, his Entry On Active Duty was 14 June 1991,     his Total

Federal Commissioned Service Date was 27 October 1987, his Total Active Federal Military Service Date was 15 May 1987, and his Pay date was 28 November 1984.

The applicant retired from active duty on 1 January 2008, in the grade of lieutenant colonel, having been promoted to that grade with an effective and a date of rank of 24 February 2003.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSIPV recommends denial and states the applicant acknowledged understanding of this program when he signed his AFHPSP contract. By law, AFHPSP can not be credited toward the applicant’s years of service for retirement.

AFPC/DPSIPV’s complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant states during the first counseling he received before he signed the contract, he was told that these years in the AFHPSP would not count as active duty time, unless he retired with more than 20 years of active duty. Evidently, he was the first cadet for some time to receive the AFHPSP scholarship at Detachment 847 and obviously there rules had changed. When he signed the contract, a copy was filed in his cadet folder.

In the meantime, when he initially made the inquiry about eligibility to retire in December 2006, the dates were calculated at more than 24 years and he assumed they were correct. Had the true dates been investigated and brought to his attention during the application process to retire, he would have reversed his decision and stayed on active duty for several more years, to hopefully obtain a promotion to the grade of colonel (0-6).

The erroneous dates were propagated through the years prior to his retirement and were reviewed at least three additional times by the office that is responsible for determining retirement eligibility and dates.

Again, he would not have retired when he applied, if he had known about the error in his service dates. He would have stayed on active duty for an additional 3-4 years. Further, when he applied for retirement, he was removed from consideration for command positions and promotion.

He is requesting one of two options; first, he would like to have the dates restored to retire with 24 plus years as originally calculated or he would like to return to active duty as an 0-6

with a possible assignment at Kirtland AFB, NM or Goodfellow AFB, TX. In addition he would be happy to fill several non-command positions he has held at previous assignments such as chief of medical staff, flight medicine clinic chief, or work in the optometry department as an accessory ophthalmologist which is what he did at Kirtland AFB just before he retired.

Because he was advised incorrectly on his retirement dates, he has entered into a contract which will cost considerable non accomplishment fees ($30,000) should he be brought back on active duty, so he prefers his first option.

Applicant’s complete response 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 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 office of primary responsibility (OPR) and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. In this respect, we note that the applicant signed a contract prior to entering the HPSP program which states he could not receive credit for services performed as an AFHPSP member in determining eligibility for retirement. Additionally, the law specifically precludes the award of service credit the applicant seeks in this appeal. Regarding his request to return to active duty as an colonel, while we note that his service dates were miscalculated at the time of his request for retirement, a corrected statement of service was produced on 19 March 2007 computing creditable service time for retirement, some nine months before he actually retired, giving him ample time change his retirement date. 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 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 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 Docket Number BC- 2008-01391 in Executive Session on 19 August 2008, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

Panel Chair 
Member
Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 20 Mar 08, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSIPV, dated 9 May 08, w/atchs. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Jul 08.
Exhibit E. Applicant’s Response, dated 19 Jul 08.