RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2016-02311

						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His pay grade be recalculated for the grade of Major, O-4, versus the commissioning grade of Captain, O-3.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was improperly gained at the grade of Captain, O-3.  Due to his education and work history, he should have been gained in the grade of Major, O-4.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving in the Air Force Reserve in the grade of Captain, O-3.

On 4 Oct 13, the applicant submitted AF Form 24, Application for Appointment as Reserve of the Air Force or USAF without Component and listed in Block 25, Chronological Statement of Civilian Employment, Including Part-time Positions, “The N.E.W Program” from 1 Jul 11 to 30 Dec 12.
.
On 24 Apr 14, under Reserve Order PA-00460, dated 1 May 14, the applicant was appointed to the Reserve of the Air Force at the grade of Captain, O-3. 

On 29 Apr 14, according to the documentation provided by ARPC/DPAR, ARPC IMT 25, Service Date Computation Worksheet (DOPMA) and ARPC IMT 70, Computation for Grade Determination, the applicant’s creditable education is indicated as:

1.	Belarusian Medical University, 15 Jun 01, 4 years
2.	ECGMG, 5 Aug 05, 0 years, 0 months and 0 days
3.	Residency NY University School of Medicine, 1 Jul 07 to 30 Jun 11, 5 years
4.	Residency Laparoscopic Surgery, 1 Jul 11 to 30 Jun 12, 1 year
5.	Residency Rush University, 1 Jul 13 to 28 Apr 14, 9 months and 28 days

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:

ARPC/DPAR recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice.  In accordance with AFI 36-2005, Appointment in Commissioned Grades and Designation and Assignment in Professional Categories – Reserve of the Air Force and United States Air Force, para 2.18.6., without specific congressional direction, appointing authorities cannot apply constructive service credit (CSC) or service credit entitlements (grandfathering) retroactively and a member cannot terminate his or her appointment and request reappointment in order to take advantage of changes to constructive service credit or service credit rules.  After reviewing the applicant’s AF IMT 24, validated by the member, all constructive credits have been awarded and the applicant was given the maximum credit for education in accordance with AFI 36-2005, Officer Accessions, Table 2.4 Rule 1; “if the applicant has successfully complete a Doctor of Medicine (MD) then the amount of service credit awarded is 4 years”.  Additionally, ARPC Form 25, Service Date Computation Worksheet, shows all documentation provided by the member has been added and counted towards grade determination.  The applicant did not submit any documentation to support additional credit.

A complete copy of the ARPC/DPAR evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant refutes virtually every point made by the OPR and argues that a correction to his CSC will not violate AFI 36-2005, para 2.18.6., as AFPC/DPAR stated in their evaluation, as he is not requesting a retroactive credit, but a correction to his CSC.  He also states that not all of his CSC points are credited to include academic and work experience as indicated below:

1.  General Surgery Residency, 26 Nov 01 to 25 Oct 02 for a total of 1 year.

2.  Postgraduate education, Division of Vascular Surgery at NYU, 1 Mar 03 to 30 Jun 06 for a total of 3 years.

3.  Bariatric Surgeon/Laparoscopic Fellowship, 1 Jul 11 to 30 Dec 12 for a total of 1 year and 6 months.  Although AF Form 24 does reflect the dates and amount of time, ARPC IMT 25, block 9, Creditable Education and ARPC IMT 70, Computation for Grade Determination, Block 7, Creditable Education reflect 1 Jul 11 to 30 Jun 12 for a total of 1 year.

4.  Physician with Surgical Affiliates Management Group Inc., 3 Jun 13 to 30 Jun 13 for a total of 14 days.

5.  Physician at the El Centro Medical Center, 14 Jun 13 to 17 Jun 13 for a total of 2 days.

In support of his response, the applicant provides copies of email correspondences, employment and residency verification, and Written Agreement Ready Reserve Healthcare Professionals Stipend Program.

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ARPC/DPAR, in response to the applicant’s rebuttal, determined no change to the initial advisory is warranted and recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice.  Another review of the applicant’s AF IMT 24 was accomplished and it was determined all constructive credits were properly awarded.  In accordance with AFI 36-2005, para 2.18.6., without specific congressional direction, appointing authorities cannot apply constructive service credit or service credit entitlements (grandfathering) retroactively and a member cannot terminate his or her appointment and request reappointment in order to take advantage of changes to constructive service credit or service credit rules.  Also, the applicant did not submit any documentation to support the additional credit.

A complete copy of the ARPC/DPAR evaluation is at Exhibit F.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant refutes virtually every point made by the OPR and reiterates his CSC should be corrected and the earned credit awarded for his education and work experience.  Additionally, the ARPC/DPAR Rebuttal Response does not address any of the mistakes ARPC made as pointed out in his response, dated 12 Feb 17.

The applicant’s complete response, is at Exhibit H.

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 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 of injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS 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-2016-02311 in Executive Session on 6 Feb 18 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2016-02311 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 May 16, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Excerpts from Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, ARPC/DPAR, dated 19 Sep 16, w/atchs.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 30 Jan 17, w/atch.
Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 12 Feb 17, w/atchs.
Exhibit F.  Memorandum, ARPC/DPAR, dated 31 Oct 17.
Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated, 28 Nov 17 w/atch.
Exhibit H.  Letter, Applicant, dated 26 Dec 17.

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.