MEH
Docket No. 10772-07
10 Dec 07

Dear 

This is in reference to the application for correction of the naval record of your client US Navy pursuant to the provisions of 10 Usc 1552.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your client’s application on 10 December 2007. Your client’s allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your client’s application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your client’s naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by NAV MED MPT&E memo of 15 May 07, a copy of which is attached. The Board also considered your response to the NAV MED MPT&E memorandum dated 10 October 0,7.

After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, a majority of the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. In this connection, the Board noted that your client signed an “Additional Duty Agreement.” That agreement states that the prospective obligated service incurred from the training would be “2 Years.” Additionally, the agreement states that “Full-Time Outservice ADO will be added to any residual obligation.” Additionally, your client executed orders that contained the following provision: “Orders contingent upon your agreement to extend on active duty until July 2009.” The Board gave due consideration

Docket No. 10772-07

to the positions you advocated in the original application and the response to the NAV MED MPT&E memorandum. However, after careful consideration of all of the issues and documents, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the advisory opinion.

As an additional matter, the Board members considered your client’s request for a personal appearance, however they found that the issues in the case were adequately documented and that a personal appearance with or without counsel would not materially add to the Board’s understanding of the issues involved. Thus, your client’s request for a personal appearance has been denied.

Accordingly, your client’s application and his request for a personal appearance before the Board have been denied. The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.

It is regretted that the circumstances of your client’s case are such that favorable action cannot be taken. Your client is entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon submission of new and material evidence or other matter not previously considered by the Board. In this regard, it is also important to keep in mind that a presumption of regularity attaches to all official records. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

Sincerely,

     W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director

Enclosure

2

May 15, 2007
To:	Head, Pay Section, BCNR, Washington, D.C.

From associate Dean for Medical Corps Programs, NAY MED MPT&E

Suhj:	BCNR petition 

I have reviewed file and concur with the obligated service worksheet that previously submitted In file that was provided to me by BCNR. the exhibit B has copies of three other physicians’ additional duty agreements. The most important item to note on these 3 additional duty agreements is the date of which they were signed. All three are signed at later dates than (-agreement. The policy on obligated service changed the year after assigned his agreement.

assigned his additional duty agreement on April 16, 2002 and in that agreement it says ‘incurred 2 years of obligation from the 1-year FTOS fellowship’. In addition, the orders he received for his FTOS fellowship state ‘orders contingent upon your agreement to extend on active duty until July 2009’.

After review of  record, there is no controversy that his active duty obligation incurred for GME is until July 2009. The recommendation from this office is not to change his obligated service date.