MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            30 November 2000                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:    AR2000036847

	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	
	Mr. W. E. Schnupp		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. John N. Slone		Chairperson	
	Mr. Thomas Lanyi		Member	
	Ms. Celia L. Adolphi		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 he be allowed to execute Medical Specialty Pay (MSP) contracts for the period July 1997 through June 2001, and that he be given the money he would have received if he had executed those contracts in a timely fashion.

APPLICANT STATES:  He was not informed that he could contract for the MSP without incurring further commitment to the military.  In November 1999 another surgeon told him that he could have contracted for the MSP without incurring any further military commitment.

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

In the processing of this case an advisory opinion was obtained from the Office of The Surgeon General (OTSG).  The OTSG stated that the Department of Defense published Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI 6000.13 on 30 June 1997 which precluded concurrent Active Duty Obligations (ADO’s).  The DoDI further stated that the Congressional intent and Health Affairs policy regarding MSP was to extend a physician beyond their current ADO, and not provide a concurrent obligation.  The OTSG continued that on 1 October 1999 the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs) (ASD HA) directed that all the services establish additional ADO’s for MSP.  The OTSG adds that it appears that the applicant declined the MSP because he did not want the additional ADO, and provides a matrix of the money the applicant has received to date from his Incentive Special Pay (ISP) and the amount he would be owed if the Board were to grant his request.  The applicant was furnished a copy of this advisory opinion and concurred with the OTSG’s recommendation.

At the time the applicant submitted his application he was serving on active duty as a major.

DoDI 6000.13 dated 30 June 1997, paragraph 6.6.2.3, states “No portion of an ADO may be satisfied . . . concurrently with any other ADO . . .”

Memorandum from the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs), dated 8 August 1999, paragraph 4, states that “Active duty obligations (ADO) for education and training and previous multiyear pay agreements will be served before serving the ADO for MSP.  The MSP ADO is served after any other existing ADO for education and training has been completed.”

In the processing of this case the staff of the Board found it necessary to contact the OTSG.  The OTSG explained that Department of Defense policy has always 
required an additional ADO to be added to any existing ADO that an officer had at the time the MSP contract was executed.  However, not all branches of the service interpreted this policy correctly and, therefore, were not requiring additional ADO’s for all officers who contracted for the MSP.  In an effort to insure all branches of the service were in compliance with the policy of additional ADO’s being added on officers who contracted for the MSP, the 1997 DoDI and the 1999 Assistant Secretary of Defense memorandum were published.  When asked why the OTSG recommended approval in Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) MSP cases where the officer was properly told he or she was not entitled to MSP without incurring an additional ADO, the OTSG stated that their recommendations are based on a precedent established in a 1996 ABCMR case.

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

1.  Contrary to the applicant’s contention, he was properly informed that on acceptance of the MSP his ADO would be increased.

2.  Since the applicant declined the MSP based on proper information, there is no reason why he should now receive the MSP without incurring an additional ADO.

3.  The Board has carefully considered the OTSG advisory opinion.  However, the OTSG’s recommendation to approve the applicant’s request is based solely on an alleged ABCMR “precedent” case, which cannot be located.  After a review of our decisions, we have not been able to verify any ABCMR decision on this same issue.  Regardless, the ABCMR considers each case on its merits.  After thorough consideration of this case, we conclude that the applicant received accurate advice from his Personnel Officer and that the advice is consistent with law and regulatory guidance.  As such, the Board does not accept the OTSG’s recommendation to approve the applicant’s request.

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:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__jns____  _____tl _  ____cla __  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000036847	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20001130	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	128.06	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.