RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03278 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) be changed to 8 Aug 96 rather than 20 Nov 96. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His TAFMSD is incorrect and request that 104 days be added to his total active Federal service. He submitted a prior BCMR application to have his Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) corrected; however, he did not realize that his total active Federal service date was erroneous as well. He was commissioned in the US Navy, on 10 May 96; however, he served on active duty as a staff sergeant prior to reporting, on 23 Aug 96, to the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (USUHS) and did not receive credit for that period of active duty. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: According to a Statement of Service, dated 20 Jun 00, on 22 Feb 88, the applicant initially enlisted in the US Navy. On 21 Aug 91, he was honorably discharged from the US Navy. On 10 May 96, the applicant was commissioned as an Ensign in the US Navy, as a Medical Service Corps (MSC) officer. On 14 Jul 99, he was discharged to complete an Interservice transfer to the Air Force Reserve. On 15 Jul 99, the applicant was appointed as a second lieutenant in the Air Force Reserve as an MSC officer. On 19 May 00, he was honorably discharged to accept a Regular Air Force appointment. On 20 May 00, the applicant was appointed as a captain in the Regular Air Force. The Statement of Service list the applicant in student status from 10 May 96 to 19 May 00. On 19 Jul 12, AFPC/DPAME administratively corrected the applicant's record by adjusting his ADSC for his time in the Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps (AFROTC) by 3 months and 15 days, with a new Active Duty Service Commitment Date (ADSCD) of 5 Feb 15. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIPV recommends denial indicating that based on the 1975 Designator Code on the Oath of Office and the law, Title 10, Section 2126. Even though his DD Form 214 states that he served on active duty from 10 May 96 to 14 Jul 99, the law states that this time in the program is not creditable towards retirement (active duty) or pay. DPSIPV received information from the Navy Medical Accessions Program Manager, indicating the applicant was commissioned in the Navy Reserves, Designator Code 1975, in an active duty status on 10 May 96. According to the Manual of Navy Officer Manpower and Personnel Classifications (NOOCS Manual), Volume 1, Part A, Section 2, Designator Codes and Descriptions, the definition of the 1975 designator code is “An Unrestricted Line Officer under instruction in the Armed Forces Health Professions Scholarship Program (HPSP) (Medical/Osteopathic).” As a member in the HPSP or USUHS programs, Title 10 USC, Section 2126, states “that service performed while a member of the program shall not be counted in determining eligibility for retirement or in computing years of service creditable for pay.” The complete DPSIPV evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant refutes virtually every point made by the OPR and reiterates his original contention that he was working at the ROTC unit full-time and not receiving training or education. The applicant states an attorney with the Office of General Council, at USUHS agrees with his assessment that the type of commission was not relevant. If he was working at the ROTC unit full-time and not receiving training or education, then his service is creditable for meeting retirement eligibility. The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E. 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, to include his rebuttal of the Air Force advisory, in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility 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-2014-03278 in Executive Session on 7 May 15 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 1 Aug 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Pertinent Excerpts from Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSIPV, dated 9 Feb 15, w/atchs. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Feb 15. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 9 Mar 15.