RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01870

						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He retroactively receive Medical Corps Additional Special Pay (ASP) and Incentive Special Pay (ISP) with an effective date of 12 Jul 13.  


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

At the time of his in-processing/accession into the Regular Air Force on 12 Jul 13, he was incorrectly informed by a base finance representative that medical special pays were initiated automatically.  Had he been correctly informed about some special pays such as ASP and ISP requiring form submission, while others like monthly variable special pay (VSP) do not require form submission, he would have acted accordingly and submitted the required forms.  

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 12 Jul 13, the applicant was ordered to active duty, assigned to the Air Force Institute of Technology (AETC), Greenville City, SC. 

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.  AFPC/DPANFl, Medical Special Pays Branch, did not receive an ASP or ISP contract for the applicant with an effective date of July 2013.  According to the Comptroller General, retroactive administrative pay is generally prohibited bar an administrative error (B-214118 (June 1, 1984); B-195622.0M, LIM (March 4, 1980); and B-186925 (November 4, 1976)).  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 (see Bowen v. Georgetown University Hospital, 488 U.S.204 (1988); Immigration & Naturalization Service v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289 (2001); and Martin v. Hadix, 527 U.S. 343 (1999)).  In this case, there was no administrative error on the part of the Air Force.  Furthermore, the statute at issue (37 USC 302) contains no retroactive language.  In AFPC/DPANF’s opinion, considering all the circumstances in this case, the applicant's record should not now 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" within the meaning of 10 USC § 1552. 

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 4 Aug 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.  Other than the applicant’s uncorroborated assertions that he was incorrectly informed by a base finance representative that medical special pays were initiated automatically, the preponderance of the evidence indicates there was no administrative error on the part of the Air Force. 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-2014-01870 in Executive Session on 24 Mar 15 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	
The following documentary evidence pertaining AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-01870 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 28 Apr 14.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPANF, dated 13 Jun 14.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Aug 14.