MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:        

	BOARD DATE:              25 May 2000                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:     AR2000041702

	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. Edmund P. Mercanti		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Elzey J. Arledge, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. Ernest W. Lutz, Jr.		Member	
	Mr. Kenneth L. Wright		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 Basic Active Service Date (BASD) be corrected to give him active service credit for the time he spent in residency after medical school.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was a West Point cadet from 1977 to 1981, he went to medical school from 1981 to 1985 under the Health Professional Scholarship Program, and attended his residency in family medicine from 1985 to 1988 in a delayed status.  He was commissioned at that time and is still on active duty, currently in the grade of lieutenant colonel.  He contends that it is unfair that his counterparts, the individuals who were selected for residencies in military medical facilities or who were sponsored in civilian programs, received more money than those physicians who were not selected for subsidized training at the time they were attending residency, and are eligible for retirement 3 years earlier.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records were not provided to the Board.

In the processing of this case the staff of the Board contacted a consultant to The Surgeon General (TSG) of the Army at the express request of the applicant.  The consultant stated that some military physicians are given active duty status for their residency while others aren’t because of end strength restrictions imposed by Congress.  The consultant added that this disparity is not generally a problem because it only affects physicians who make the military a career.

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.  The time the applicant spent in residency was not active service and is not creditable in establishing his BASD.  This fact is not disputed by the applicant.

2.  The applicant’s primary contention is that it isn’t fair that some physicians complete their residency while on active duty, thereby establishing a earlier BASD than officers who were not offered active duty or sponsored residencies.  

3.  As stated by the Consultant to TSG, the Army can only offer so many active duty residencies because of Congressional strength restrictions on officers.  This limitation is similar to the limitations on appointments at United States Military Academies, ROTC scholarships, and seats in career enhancing schools.  Congress limits how many officers the military can have on active duty at any given time and limits the amount of money the services can spend training officers.  The Board cannot find an injustice with any policy which is governed by Congress.

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

___eja   _  ___ewl __  ___klw  __  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000041702	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20000525	
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.	135.03	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.