RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00163 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: She receive Board Certification Pay (BCP) for the period 1 Jan 11 through 31 Dec 13. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She did maintain her medical credentials and feels that she earned the BCP. In Jan 11, she submitted her updated board certificate to her credentials program manager, not realizing she was required to submit her updated certificate to AFPC, medical special pays, to continue her BCP. Her error in not recertifying was due to not finding the right balance between work and looking after her personal interest. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 13 May 02. On 6 Jan 14, the applicant resigned under honorable conditions, and was credited with 11 years, 7 months, and 24 days of active service. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPANF recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. The applicant’s records contain documentation showing her medical certificate in Family Practice was valid from 2003 through 2010, therefore, on 31 Dec 10 her BCP was stopped by AFPC Medical Special Pays. The applicant was responsible for providing her recertification documentation to AFPC, Medical Special Pays to ensure continued BCP, but she did not do so. From 2002 until Dec 2013, she received different types of medical special pays, each pay type requiring her to submit a signed additional special pay (ASP) contract. The first statement on each contract initialed by the applicant indicated she read the Air Force Medical Officer Special Pay Plan, which had a dedicated area addressing BCP requirements. According to the Comptroller General, retroactive administrative pay is generally prohibited barring an administrative error. In addition, when interpreting statutes, there is a presumption against retroactivity. Statutes should generally not be read to have retroactive effect unless specific language requires. Further, Federal Courts have consistently defined “injustice” within Title 10, United States Code (USC), §1552 as behavior or action that rises to the level that “shocks the sense of justice.” This is a high standard which requires more than merely deciding that an action taken might be viewed as unfair or which has had arguably adverse consequences. The applicant’s record should not be altered as the error was on the part of the applicant, not the Air Force, and the circumstances simply do not rise to a level that “shocks the sense of justice.” A complete copy of the AFPC/DPANF evaluation is at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 28 Jul 14 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). As of this date, no response has been received by this office. THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations. 2.  The application was timely filed. 3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice. We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with this application. The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-00163 in Executive Session on 27 Jan 15 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 7 Jan 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPANF, dated 27 Mar 14, w/atchs. Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Jul 14. 2 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – PRIVACY ACT OF 1974 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – PRIVACY ACT OF 1974 1 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – PRIVACY ACT OF 1974 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – PRIVACY ACT OF 1974 4