ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03265-3

XXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL: XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
	 
	HEARING REQUESTED: YES	

APPLICANT’S REQUEST

1.  The Board reconsider his request to show he was detailed to attend medical school rather than attend as a Health Professions Scholarship Program (HPSP) student.  

2.  His time as a medical school student be credited as active duty service.  

RESUME OF THE CASE

The applicant is a lieutenant colonel (O-5) in the Regular Air Force.  

On 21 May 15, the Board considered and denied his request to have his time in the HPSP program creditable as active duty service.  The Board agreed with AFPC/DPANE and AFPC/JA the applicant was an HPSP recipient.  There was no evidence the applicant was selected to attend medical school in an active duty status, nor was he qualified for the program since he was not on active duty for not less than 2 years in order to be eligible as required by 10 U.S.C. § 2004a.  The applicant’s argument his four years at the United States Air Force Academy (USAFA) made him eligible to be detailed to medical school under the provisions of 10 U.S.C. § 2004a is without merit since cadet active service  is not creditable as active service. 

On 29 Jun 21, counsel on behalf of the applicant requested reconsideration of his case and his records be corrected to show he was detailed to medical school and his time as a medical school student be credited as active duty service.  He did not apply to HPSP and did not sign the HPSP contract prior to starting medical school.  He also refused to sign the areas of concern of the contract.  He was counseled on 19 Dec 07, per the email provided, his time in medical school would count towards retirement.  

On 1 Feb 22, the Board denied the applicant’s case concurring with the rationale and recommendation of AFPC/DP2NP his records showed he attended medical school as an HPSP student.  The Board acknowledged the applicant’s 5 Apr 04 HPSP contract required administrative corrections and was re-signed by the applicant on 19 Dec 07.  However, the Board did not find this evidence sufficient to find he was detailed to medical school.  Accordingly, by law, the period in HPSP cannot be creditable as active duty service.

For an accounting of the applicant’s original requests and the rationale of the earlier decisions, see the AFBCMR Letter and Record of Proceedings at Exhibit L.   

The applicant’s case requires further consideration.  On 15 Nov 21, counsel provided a rebuttal response to the AFPC/DP2NP advisory.  However, the AFBCMR did not receive the rebuttal response.  On 16 Mar 22, upon receipt of the AFBCMR Notification Letter and the Addendum to the ROP dated 7 Feb 22, counsel informed the AFBCMR staff a timely rebuttal response was submitted but not considered by the Board.  

In a response dated 15 Nov 21, counsel on behalf of the applicant, contends the advisory opinion is nothing more than a conclusory opinion.  It does not contain discussion or analysis of a single fact or issue raised by the applicant.  It is entirely useless and should be disregarded.  

Counsel provides a Leave and Earnings Statement (LES) for 1-31 Aug 04, which shows he received full pay and benefits,  disproving the advisory opinion the applicant did not receive full pay and allowances as a second lieutenant (O-1) for the period of 2004 to 2008.  

ARPC Form 92, Appointment Order, stating the applicant was participating in the HPSP is also dated one year after the supposed start time.  

Counsel also provides AFIT/RPB memorandum dated 22 Oct 13, showing an expense summary for the applicant.  The memorandum states the applicant’s program as HPSP with entry date 12 Aug 04 and graduation date 3 May 08.  The Board should grant the applicant the requested relief.  

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit M.  

APPLICABLE AUTHORITY/GUIDANCE

10 U.S.C. § 971. In computing length of service for any purpose, service as a cadet at a service academy may not be credited to a commissioned officer as active duty service.  

10 U.S.C. § 2004a: Detail of commissioned officers as students at medical school. (a) Detail Authorized. The Secretary of each military department may detail commissioned officers of the armed forces as students at accredited medical schools or schools of osteopathy located in the United States for a period of training leading to the degree of doctor of medicine. No more than 25 officers from each military department may commence such training in any single fiscal year. (b) Eligibility for Detail. To be eligible for detail must (1) have served on active duty for a period of not less than two years nor more than six years and be in the pay grade O–3 or below as of the time the training is to begin; and (2) sign an agreement that unless sooner separated the officer will (A) complete the educational course of medical training; (B) accept transfer or detail as a medical officer within the military department concerned when the officer's training is completed; and (C) agree to serve, following completion of the officer's training, on active duty (or on active duty and in the Selected Reserve) for a period as specified.  

10 U.S.C. § 2121: Persons participating in the HPSP must be commissioned officers in Reserve components of the armed forces. Members shall serve on active duty in pay grade O–1 with full pay and allowances of that grade for a period of 45 days during each year of participation.  Members shall serve on active duty in a pay grade commensurate with their educational level, as determined by appointment under section 12207 of this title, with full pay and allowances of that grade for a period of 14 days during each year of participation in the program.  (d) Except when serving on active duty pursuant to subsection (c), a member of the program shall be entitled to a stipend at a monthly rate established by the Secretary of Defense, but not to exceed a total of $30,000 per year. 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

1.  The application was timely filed.

2.  The applicant exhausted all available non-judicial relief before applying to the Board.

3.  After reviewing all Exhibits, the Board remains unconvinced the evidence presented demonstrates an error or injustice.  The Board notes the applicant did not meet the eligibility criteria to be detailed to medical school in an active duty status per 10 U.S.C. § 2004a since he had not served on active duty for a period of not less than two years nor more than six years prior to attending medical school.  While the applicant contends he was eligible due to his service at the USAFA, service as a cadet at a service academy is not creditable service for computing length of service for any purpose per 10 U.S.C § 971.    Counsel also contends the LES for 1 to 31 Aug 04 is evidence he received full pay and benefits; however, this is insufficient to substantiate he received full pay and allowances from 2004 to 2008, the period he attended medical school.  Counsel also contends his ARPC Form 92, dated one year after the supposed start time as further evidence; however, the Board disagrees.  The Appointment Order states he was appointed as a Reserve officer in the rank of second lieutenant for participation in the HPSP.     Further, as pointed out in the earlier case, the Board does not dispute his HPSP contract required administrative correction; however, the Board finds the administrative errors do not rise to a level of an error injustice to warrant granting the requested relief. Therefore, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.

4.  The applicant has not shown a personal appearance, with or without counsel, would materially add to the Board’s understanding of the issues involved.

RECOMMENDATION

The Board recommends informing the applicant the evidence did not demonstrate material error or injustice, and the Board will reconsider the application only upon receipt of relevant evidence not already presented.

CERTIFICATION

The following quorum of the Board, as defined in Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR), paragraph 1.5, considered Docket Number BC-2014-03265-3 in Executive Session on 21 Apr 22:

 , Panel Chair
 , Panel Member
 , Panel Member

All members voted against correcting the record.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit L:	Addendum to Record of Proceedings, w/ Exhibits A-K, dated 7 Feb 22.
Exhibit L:	Counsel’s response, w/atchs, dated 15 Nov 21.   

Taken together with all Exhibits, this document constitutes the true and complete Record of Proceedings, as required by AFI 36-2603, paragraph 4.11.9.