MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           13 June 2000                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999024965

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mrs. Nancy Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Elizabeth Buchanon		Chairperson	
	Mr. John H. Kern		Member	
	Ms. Barbara J. Ellis		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That his records be corrected to show constructive service credit for a doctorate in chiropractic and years in practice earned prior to his entry on active duty following completion of medical school.

APPLICANT STATES:  That his degree in chiropractic is an advanced degree that adds adjunctive skills to his primary specialty of 61P (Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation).  He uses those skills in his continuity clinic and outpatient clinic rotations on a daily basis.  He also teaches the skills and knowledge to other residents and staff in his department.  It is not a degree in the same field as the doctorate in medicine.  He cites comments in his Officer Evaluation Reports that mention he “applied his expertise and experience as a prior practicing chiropractor toward his ever-expanding treatment options for his patients” and “his teaching and utilization of chiropractic is a definite plus for the program.” He provides two memorandums of recommendation to support his request.  He feels that he is eligible for 2 or 3 years of constructive credit for this degree.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

He graduated from Northwestern College of Chiropractic in August 1985.  He practiced as a licensed chiropractor from August 1985 until he returned to medical school in July 1992.  

The applicant was ordered to active duty on orders issued 18 March 1996.  Those orders noted that he had been awarded constructive credit for his time    (4 years) in medical school only.  On 8 May 1996, the applicant requested constructive service credit for his chiropractic degree for a grade determination.  He was appointed a second lieutenant in the U. S. Army Reserve on 8 June 1996 and entered active duty as a captain.  His specialty is 61P9D, Physiatrist (Army Regulation 611-101 describes the duties of a Physiatrist as planning, establishing and directing physical medicine program at a medical installation).

The Office of the Surgeon General (OTSG) denied the applicant’s request for constructive service credit for his degree and experience in chiropractic.

In the cited precedent case, the applicant had requested constructive credit for a doctorate in dental surgery earned prior to his entry into medical school.  In the processing of that case, the Graduate Medical Education (GME) Directorate, OTSG, opined that the applicant’s DDS did add adjunctive skills to the applicant’s anticipated primary specialty.  The Chief, Medical Corps Branch, U. S. Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM), however, had nonconcurred with the OTSG’s advisory opinion by stating that OTSG was not qualified to make a 

determination whether the applicant’s DDS added adjunctive skills to the applicant’s current projected specialty.  The Board abided by OTSG’s advisory opinion and granted that applicant constructive service credit.

In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the GME Directorate, OTSG (SEE ATTACHED).  That office opined that it has consistently not granted entry grade credit for health care degrees, including dentistry, veterinary medicine and or optometry.  Some considerations which support denying entry grade credit for other health care degrees are that:  no unique qualification is added; it does not result in medical school credit; it does not shorten any residency; does not add adjunctive skill to internship training; and does not result in any special consideration in the civilian sector.  However, the Board had established precedence in granting credit under docket number  AC94-10596A.

A copy of the advisory opinion was provided to the applicant.  He responded (SEE ATTACHED) by stating that his situation is very similar to the cited precedent case in that his prior training and experience directly impact his performance as a resident in physical medicine and rehabilitation.  In addition, he has been appointed as the physician supervisor from the Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Department for the Chiropractic Clinic located at Walter Reed Army Medical Center.  He is also in charge of quality improvement for the Chiropractic Clinic.  It is obvious that the U. S. Army is benefiting from and utilizing his skills, training and experience as a chiropractor.

An advisory opinion was obtained from the medical advisor to the Army Review Boards Agency (SEE ATTACHED).  The applicant responded to this advisory opinion (SEE ATTACHED) by identifying several physicians who received constructive credit for degrees not included in Army Regulation 135-101.  He noted that, in the cited precedent case, the advisory opinion from the Chief, Medical Corps Branch, stated that the OTSG was not qualified to make a determination whether the applicant’s DDS added adjunctive skill to the applicant’s current projected specialty.  The Board did not agree with that advisory opinion and determined that the OTSG’s determination was valid.

A further advisory opinion was obtained from the GME Directorate, OTSG (SEE ATTACHED).  That office opined that the applicant’s credential upon graduation from medical school did not meet the required criteria:  no unique qualification was added; it did not result in medical school credit; it did not shorten any residency; it did not add adjunctive skill to internship training and did not result in any special consideration in the civilian sector.  His chiropractic degree did not result in shortening the length of his medical school training nor the length of his residency.  Although physical medicine and chiropractic procedures may be 

considered related, the American Board of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation does not modify its requirement for full training in physical medicine and rehabilitation in order to be board eligible for those with prior training/experience in chiropractic.

The advisory opinion was provided to the applicant.  He responded (SEE ATTACHED) by stating he believes OTSG has taken the stand it has due to discrimination against the Doctor of Chiropractic degree by the physicians at the OTSG and the medical advisor to the Board.  He believes their personal biases and discrimination against the Doctor of Chiropractic degrees stems from the 
American Medical Association’s plans to first contain and then eliminate chiropractic.  

Army Regulation 135-101 provides policy for the appointment of reserve commissioned officers for assignment to Army medical branches.  In pertinent part, it provides that a physician may be awarded constructive service credit for an additional advanced degree (other than medical or osteopathic) if that degree contributes adjunctive skills to the primary specialty and if it was not earned at the same time as the basic qualifying degree.  Table 3-1 provides that credit for additional advanced degrees is awarded based on full-time equivalent education up to 36 months for a doctorate.  Table 3-4 exempts advanced degrees earned in Optometry and Veterinary medical specialties from being used to award additional credit unless approved by the Secretary of the Army or designee on a case-by-case basis.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and advisory opinions, it is concluded:

1.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.

2.  In the cited precedent case, there had been a disagreement between officials at PERSCOM and OTSG.  The Board agreed with OTSG that relief should be granted in that case based on OTSG’s professional judgment.

3.  In the applicant’s case, however, OTSG’s professional judgment is that relief not be granted.  The Board is reluctant to grant relief concerning medical qualifications, contrary to the professional experts, absent objective professional evidence that shows by the preponderance of the evidence that the Army’s experts are wrong.

4.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.
DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

__eb____  __jhk___  __bje___  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		    Carl W. S. Chun
		    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999024965	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000613	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(GRANT)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	102.08	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.