MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            21 August 2001                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001051604

	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	
	Ms. Carolyn G. Wade		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. James E. Vick		Chairperson	
	Ms. Barbara J. Ellis		Member	
	Mr. William D. Barr		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 granted 4 years’ constructive service credit for longevity pay purposes for his attendance at St. Louis School of Medicine, Class of 1987, from August 1983 to June 1987.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that constructive service credit (CSC) has occurred for a portion of military physicians in the class of 1987 and that these eligible military physicians were graduates of the United States Military Academy (USMA) who entered medical school and became the class of 1987.  The recent retroactive CSC granted to Uniform Services University of Health Sciences (USUHS) class of 1987 graduates who were USMA undergraduates has created an unethical, unfair, biased, and discriminatory standard in the work environment. For years the class of 1987 graduates have been told that no relief of Defense Officer Personnel Management Act (DOPMA) standards was forthcoming.  Now, a different standard is being applied piecemeal to graduates who are similar to me in every way.  This is discriminatory, biased, and clearly unfair and unethical in the distribution of CSC and subsequent pay.

In support of his application, the applicant provides a copy of his enlistment contract and a copy of his Oath of Office.

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

He is a Lieutenant Colonel serving on active duty in the Army Medical Corps.  He was a Reserve Officers' Training Corps (ROTC) scholarship student at Washington University where he graduated in June 1983.  He accepted a United States Army Reserve (USAR) appointment as a second lieutenant and a delay from entry on active duty in order to attend medical school at St. Louis University School of Medicine.  He entered medical school in August 1983 under the Armed Forces' Health Professions Scholarship Program (HPSP).  He graduated with a Doctor of Medicine degree in June 1987.

As stated by the applicant, this Board granted constructive service credit to a number of USUHS graduates (Class of 1987) who were also 1983 graduates of the USMA.  The Board based its favorable decision on one piece of supporting documentation -- a 23 July 1998 letter from a retired colonel who, in 1983, was the USMA Surgeon and Chairman of the USMA Medical Program Advisory Committee.  In this letter, the former USMA Surgeon stated unequivocally that he told prospective USUHS students from the USMA Class of 1983 that they would receive constructive service credit for their attendance at the USUHS.  The Board reasoned that the cadets were misinformed concerning the issue of constructive service credit; that each cadet then made a career decision (to resign a Regular Army commission and accept a US Army Reserve commission) based upon erroneous information; and that it would be unjust to withhold constructive service credit after the cadets had been told they would receive it.

The Board's rationale for granting constructive service credit based upon clearly established proof of receipt of misinformation concerning the implementation of DOPMA has been applied equally to every application seeking such relief.  Several other medical officers from the USUHS Class of 1987, who are not USMA graduates, have also received constructive service credit based on the same criteria applied to the USMA graduates.

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

1.  The applicant entered St. Louis University School of Medicine under the HPSP and has provided no evidence to show that he was misinformed concerning the issue of constructive service credit and that this misinformation caused him to make a career decision based upon erroneous information.

2.  Notwithstanding the applicant's contentions, this Board has not created an unethical, unfair, biased, and discriminatory standard in the work environment by favoring USMA graduates over non-USMA graduates who attended medical school.  The standard of proof applied by the Board in all cases is whether the applicant can prove that he or she was misinformed about the implications of DOPMA on constructive service credit.  The 1983 USMA graduates met that standard of proof, as have several other USUHS graduates who were not graduates of the USMA.

3.  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.

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

_JEV___  __BJE ___  __WDB__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001051604	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20010821	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	DIRECTOR	
ISSUES         1.	102.0800	
2.	128.0000	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.