MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            22 April 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-11606
                                              AR1999014675

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

	Mr. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Mr. Michael L. Engle		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright		Chairperson	
	Ms. Elizabeth Buchanon		Member	
	Mr. Thomas A. Pagan		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  In effect, that he receive Incentive Special Pay (ISP) for the 3 month period from July to September 1996.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he has been board certified since 12 June 1996 but did not begin receiving ISP until October 1996.  He states that he completed his fellowship training in July 1998 and renegotiated his ISP contract to commence in July.  He contends that he only received 9 months of ISP as a result of his contract renegotiation but should have received the full year.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records are not available and are not considered essential for the review of this case.  At the time he submitted his application he was serving on active duty as a radiologist in the rank of major, Medical Corps.

During the processing of this case an advisory opinion was obtained from the Office of The Surgeon General (TSGO) and was forwarded to the applicant for comment.  As of this date, no response has been received.

The advisory opinion states that the applicant was not eligible to enter into a one-year ISP agreement upon graduation from his first residency on 1 July 1996. Department of Defense policy dictates a minimum requirement for 90 days post initial residency completion before an officer is eligible to enter into an ISP agreement.  Additionally, board certification has no impact on officer’s eligibility for ISP.  Therefore, the applicant was first eligible and did execute an ISP agreement effective 1 October 1996.  The applicant renegotiated his ISP agreement effective 1 July 1998, upon completion of his second residency/fellowship.  This authorized renegotiation required recoupment of the unserved portion of the applicant’s previous ISP agreement.  No further adjustment was required.  It was recommended that his request for ISP for the period 1 July-30 September 1996 be denied.

The ISP program constitutes a voluntary retention program for Medical Corps officers wherein they agree to continue on active duty in their specialties for incremental periods of 1 year, renewable annually.  In return, the Army agrees to pay them ISP in a one-time lump sum.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and advisory opinion(s), it is concluded:

1.  The applicant did not attain eligibility to enter into an ISP agreement until after 90 days post initial residency (October 1996).

2.  The applicant’s contention that he is eligible for ISP from the date of his board certification is without merit.

3.  The applicant’s renegotiation of his ISP in July 1998 required recoupment of the 3 months unserved on the previous ISP agreement.

4.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

____X___  ____X___  ____X___  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AC98-11606/AR1999014675	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	19990422	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	128.06	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.