RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-04084

						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He receive retroactive Consolidated Special Pay (CSP), effective 1 July 2009 to the present.  

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He has maintained his board certification since 2006.  He was out-processing into a three-year Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT) position at a geographically separated civilian institution when the Air Force social work profession was implemented into the 2009 Air Force Consolidation of Special Pay (CSP).  The release was complicated and delayed by technical difficulties and he did not have access to normal Air Force communication channels.  As such, he was not properly informed of changes to Medical Special Pay program.  Individuals at geographically separated units were not adequately advised of these important changes.  Those who are in geographically separated units should be afforded the same benefits as those in traditional units.  

He returned to the Air Force in 2012; however, there was no further discussion in regards to CSP.  He only became aware of the CSP change due to a candid conversation about finances with a colleague.  His colleague’s CSP application was backdated to 1 July 2009 because he too had a permanent change of station (PCS) during the summer of 2009 and was only able to complete the form upon arrival at his new duty location in September 2009.  

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in the grade of major (O-4).  

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C.  
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Medical/Chaplain Career Management Division recommends denial.  The error in question was on the part of the applicant’s unfamiliarity of applicable special pay programs and therefore does not warrant retroactive/back pay for the requested programs and timeframe.  Additionally, Title 37, United States Code (USC) 335, Special bonus and incentive pay authorities for officers in health professions,” contains no retroactive language to allow for backdating/retroactive pay.  

The Medical Special Pays plan changes on a fiscal year basis and this information is available through the Medical Knowledge Exchange and AFPC/DP2SSM, the Medical Special Pay’s office.  

The applicant does not cite which special pay he is requesting retroactive pay for, only that he is entitled to retroactive pay.  The Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) 42S, Clinical Social Worker, is only entitled to one type of special pay, which is Board Certification Pay.  

In accordance with fiscal year 2009 Air Force Consolidation of Special Pay (CSP) for Selected Health Professions Officer, the CSP plan for Biomedical Sciences Corps (BSC) officers, regarding board certification, and for purposes of retroactive pay, is limited to the first period the member was not continuously certified OR five fiscal years in arrears due to Air Force budgetary accounting constraints.  No payment can be verified in the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) for the past five fiscal years and no retroactive payment will be made if it cannot be verified in the DFAS accounting system.  

A complete copy of the Medical Chaplain evaluation is at Exhibit C.  

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

He disputes that he did not file his application within three years of the discovery.  During a candid conversation with a colleague on 15 September 2015 he learned of the issue and within 24 hours of identifying the injustice he filed his application with the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records.  The following day, he initiated an incident report on the Air Force Personnel Service website (myPers).  

He further disputes that he did not exhaust his administrative remedies.  He immediately consulted with colleagues and gathered background information.  While it was noted that he should have read and interpreted the Biomedical Sciences Corps pay plans on a recurring basis, reviewing pay plans is an unreasonable solution.  When he was assigned to a geographically separated location between 2009 through 2012, his ability to monitor secure government websites was compromised.  Upon his return to an Air Force installation in 2012, there was no longer discussion on the topic.  Furthermore, he has reviewed the most recent BSC Specialty Pay Contract Request and there is no mention of responsibility for the member to routinely monitor pay plans.  If monitoring pay plans is an expectation of his duties or benefits, then it should be conspicuously outlined on the contract.  

The applicant’s response, with attachments, 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 an error or injustice.  We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission, to include his rebuttal response, 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 error or injustice.  While we note the applicant’s contention of unawareness and inaccessibility to normal Air Force communication channels, other than his own assertion, he has presented no evidence of an error on the part of the Air Force.  The Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) indicated the Medical Special Pays plan is available through the Medical Knowledge Exchange and AFPC/DP2SSM, the Medical Special Pay’s office.  The applicant has not provided sufficient evidence that he was denied the opportunity to gain this entitlement.  We further note, the applicant cited a CSP application that was backdated; essentially asserting that his circumstances are significantly close enough that similar consideration should be applied to his case and relief be granted.  Specifically, in regards to the cited approved application, the member completed an application upon arrival at his duty location, two months after the program was initiated.  In the case under review, unlike the member completing an application, the applicant never submitted an application for approval.  Therefore, the applicant is not similarly situated.  As such, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, or that the applicant has been treated differently than others similarly situated, we find no basis to grant the relief sought in this application.  

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-2015-04084 in Executive Session on 26 January 2017 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 September 2015, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, Medical Chaplain, dated 15 November 
                 2016.  
	Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 1 December 2016.  
Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 21 December 2016, 
            w/atchs.  

Pursuant to paragraph 1 of AFI 36-2603 (Title 32 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 865.1), it is certified that a quorum was present at the Board's review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board's proceedings in the above entitled matter.