RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03298 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. His records be corrected to reflect that he was appointed into the medical corps (MC) in the grade of major in Jan 12, instead of being appointed in the grade of captain in Aug 13 and he receive medical special pays and bonuses effective said date. 2. His promotion to major be effective in Jan 12, instead of Nov 14. 3. He receive 100 percent Constructive Service Credit (CSC) for Line of the Air Force (LAF) time rather than 50 percent credit. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 1. The denial of his original accession request was due to a misapplication of the rules and was further motivated by reprisal due to his contribution to a medical exception to policy pertaining to another officer. 2. He met all the requirements to serve as a Flight Surgeon and served unsupervised in that role from Oct 12 through Nov 13. The stated requirement that he complete a three-year residency before being accessed into the MC was a violation of AFI 44-119, Medical Quality Operations. 3. He worked as a full time Flight Surgeon for over a year but received only 50 percent CSC for this time, which unfairly delayed his promotion to major. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: In Jan 12, while serving in the grade of captain (O-3), according to the documents provided by the applicant, he submitted his initial Competitive Component Transfer (CCT) request to enter the MC. On 3 Apr 12, the applicant’s CCT request was disapproved because it lacked approval of the gaining and losing career field manager, which is required based on provisions of AFI 36-2106, Competitive Category Transfer. On 8 Apr 13, according to AFPC/DPANF, the applicant resubmitted his CCT request. On 5 Nov 13, the senate confirmed the applicant’s appointment in the grade of major (0-4). On 7 Nov 13, the applicant’s CCT order was published transferring him from the LAF to the MC in the grade of major with a date of rank of 18 Apr 10. On 14 Nov 13, the applicant was notified via email that his (CSC) was incorrectly computed. Specifically, the applicant was inadvertently given 100 percent credit for LAF time instead of 50 percent credit. The corrected total was computed as 9 years, 7 months, and 12 days. As at least ten years CSC is required for appointment in the grade of major, the applicant should not have been appointed in the grade of major (O-4), but instead appointed in the grade of captain (O-3). On 15 Nov 13, according to AFPC/DPANF, the applicant’s CSC was re-evaluated to reflect a total credit of 9 years, 2 months, and 22 days (because transfer date was adjusted from 1 Oct 13 to 1 Aug 13). On 20 Nov 13, the CCT order was amended changing the applicant’s transferred effective date to 1 Aug 13 and his rank to captain with a date of rank of 9 May 08. As a result, the applicant became eligible for consideration for promotion to the grade of major (O-4) by the CY13 Maj Medical Services Corps (MSC) Central Selection Board (CSB). As such, he was considered by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for the noted CSB on 9 Jun 14 and was selected for promotion. As a result, he was promoted to the grade of major (O-4) on 14 Nov 14, with a date of rank of 9 May 14. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPANP recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an injustice. The applicant opted to enter the Air Force as a pilot. In 12, he decided to pursue becoming a pilot-physician but was not qualified to practice medicine independently and lacked several requirements necessary to enter the MC. He lacked board certification, completion of residency training, and the necessary work experience. However, due to senior leader interest, he was afforded an unprecedented and wholly unique opportunity. The applicant references AFI 44-119, but misunderstood its context. This applies to physicians who were already accessed and are subsequently discovered to lack specific skill sets that require supervision until the officer achieves full competency. The AF does not access fully qualified physicians that are known in advance to lack clinical currency or require supervision. Recognizing the applicant’s future value to the Air Force, he was afforded special arrangements that made it possible for him to enter the MC, even though he was not fully qualified to do so and did not become qualified for entry into the MC until Sep 12. He did not resubmit his CCT request until Apr 13. The request was not approved by Congress & the President until Nov 13. As for his requests for special pays, he was not eligible to sign special pay contracts until this time because he was not yet part of the MC. He missed his promotion board in Sep 13 because he was not yet part of the MC, but met the special selection board the next May and received the date of rank he would have originally received had he met the board in Sep 13. The applicant was not eligible for medical special pay until he was approved for entry into the MC in Nov 13. He submitted an Additional Special Pay (ASP) contract in Dec 13, resulting in the 30 Nov 14 active duty service commitment. Medical Special Pay (MSP) contracts cannot be backdated earlier than the first day of the month in which they are signed. He was not eligible for MSP earlier, because his CCT had not been approved by the President or Congress until Nov 13. The applicant received one year credit toward his MSP date which set his variable special pay (VSP) rate. Once approved in Nov 13 to enter the MC, his VSP could be back paid to his effective date of entry into the MC (Aug 13). The applicant was paid VSP from 1 Apr 13 instead of 1 Aug 13 by mistake. This was resolved with Defense Finance and Accounting System (DFAS) in Mar 14 to collect the four month overpayment. After review of the processing of the applicant’s case, no evidence of any adverse influence was found by the OPR. To the contrary, rather than being wronged, he was afforded unique advantages that made it possible for him to enter the MC. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPANP evaluation is at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant refutes virtually every point made by the OPR and argues that he was a fully qualified physician when he initially attempted to transfer into the MC starting in 2009. The OPR conveniently omits the fact that he never should have waited for Congressional approval in 2013. The only reason he waited five additional months for Congressional approval was because their office incorrectly calculated his grade. If they had done their job correctly, he would have joined the MC as a Captain and met the medical promotion board in Sep 13. He was forced to wait for a supplemental selection board to convene at the end of May 14. Not only was he denied promotion and pay because of these errors, he interviewed for a highly competitive program in Oct 14 and was not selected. Having the grade of major could have bolstered his chances. The pilot-physician program is an elite and challenging program. There are only 12 in the AF and it would seem that the AF would make efforts to assist a member in achieving this goal instead of trying to dissuade him. In support of his response, the applicant provides copies of an Inspector General (IG) complaint, emails pertaining to his case and excerpts from his personnel records (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 an 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 the applicant has not been the victim of an injustice. His argument on rebuttal, that the delay in his appointment caused him to be deprived of opportunities he would have been eligible for had his appointment not been delayed, were considered. However, even if the applicant had provided evidence of specific opportunities to compete for advancement, other than speculation and conjecture; he has provided no evidence he would have been selected for said opportunities if not for the fact that he held the grade of captain at the time of his application. Argument and conjecture are not a basis for a determination that an applicant has been the victim of an error or injustice. Ultimately, while the applicant’s arguments are duly noted, in our view, the Air Force went to great lengths to tailor a program that recognized the applicant’s potential to serve as a pilot-physician. While it is clear that his CSC was initially erroneously calculated, we believe the Air force went to great efforts to correct the error by backdating his accession into the medical corps (MC) for the sole purpose of making him eligible for promotion consideration by the Sep 13 CSB and subsequent consideration by the Jun 14 SSB. In our view, this represents full and fitting relief. Finally, we note the applicant claims that he is the victim of reprisal in violation of 10 USC 1034, the law also known as the Whistleblower Protection Act. However, other than his own uncorroborated assertions, the applicant has presented no direct evidence that a favorable personnel action was withheld, or that such action was threatened to be withheld, or that an unfavorable action was taken or threatened, in retaliation to a protected communication. Even if we assume for the sake of argument that there was a protected communication, the applicant has presented no evidence whatsoever of a reprisal motive being present in his dealings with various Air Force officials as he sought to resolve the issues related to his transfer to the medical corps and his subsequent promotion to the grade of major. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief. 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 the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2014-03298 in Executive Session on 25 Feb 15, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence pertaining AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-03298 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 7 Aug 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPANP, dated 1 Dec 14. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Jan 15. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, undated, w/atchs.