LinkedIn Logo

Board for Correction Case No. 067-86


Board for Correction Case No. 067-86

192.00 Pay and Allowances (Includes Allotments of Pay / Allowances / Basic Pay) - Retroactive special pay

Recommendation of the Board for Correction on Case No 067-86, xxxxxx

Xxxxxxx filed an application with the Board for Cor­rections dated xxxxx 1986, requesting the Board to correct the record to authorize a Retention Special Pay (RSP) Contract for the period xxxxx 1985 - xxxxxxxx 1985. The merits of his request were reviewed on the basis of the documentation received. Tbe relevant facts in the Board's Proceedings are included as Attachment 1.

After consideration of all information received, the recommendation of the members of the Board for Correction is that xxxxxxxx request be denied and that no change be made in his record.

It is certified that the foregoing recommendation is a true and complete statement of the action taken by the members of the Board for Correction, as contained in the Attachment to this memorandum, and that the report of this action has been reviewed by the Board members. Further, it is certified that the documentation contained in Attacbment 2 includes all information received by the members of the Board and that, in addition to applicable statutes, regulations and policies, it has been considered in arriving at this recommendation. Finally, it is certified that a quorum of Board members was present on xxxx 1980 when xxxxxxxxx request was considered.

The foregoing action of the Board for Correction is submitted for your review and approval.

Ellen Wormser


(1) Board Proceedings
(2) Case File including all documentation received

Reviewed and Approved

I hereby approve the recommendation of the members of the Board on the request of Xxxxxxxx which was received and considered in accordance with the authority of 10 U.S.C. 1552 an4 42 U.S.C. 213a (12).

Wilford J. Forbush
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Health Operations and
Director, Office of Management



The central issue before the Board members was whether or not the proper procedures were followed in processing xxxxxxxx request for RSP coverage. In considering the documentation before the Board the members found that:

  1. RSP contracts were offered to commissioned officers as an incentive for them to remain in the Corps and provide a needed service to the Public Health Service. The XXX management officials in xxxxxxx chain of command decided not to offer him a permanent position because they had no need for his services.
  2. xxxxxxx completed his application for RSP contract not knowing at the time that XXX did not intend to offer him a permanent position. He learned of the XXX decision on xxxxxx 1985 when he met with Xxxxxxx. Xxxxxxx left his signed application with Xxxxxxx on that date knowing he did not have a permanent position or the support of XXX management for an RSP contract.
  3. Xxxxxxx took no independent action to have his request for RSP coverage approved after he learned that XXX did not have any need for his services -- the premise upon which approval of an RSP contract was based.
  4. CPOD procedures permitted Xxxxxxx to have had his ap­plication for RSP coverage reviewed by the Medical Officer Special Pay Review Board even though he was not recommended by XXX. The fact that XXX did not have a permanent position for him and did not recommend him for RSP coverage did not preclude Xxxxxxx from being considered for RSP coverage through independent action on his part. 
  5. CPOD procedures required a listing of commissioned officers whose contracts were expiring be provided to the designated component representative along with a copy of an RSP contract. The list was distributed once each month and included the names of all officers with contracts expiring within the next three months. Xxxxxxx was contacted on several occasions, according to the documentation before the Board, and asked: "to either return a signed RSP contract or a statement indicating he did not wish such a contract." The Board members did not find that Xxxxxxx complied with this request.
  6. Not having an RSP contract in effect, was a benefit to xxxxxxxx during the time when he considered other jobs available to him. Having a contract in place would have required him to face the risk of loss of accumulated annual leave and travel and transportation benefits, if he had accepted a job in the private sector (and broke his contract.) Further, having a contract in place would have increased the risk that CPOD would not have approved his transfer to the Xxxxxxxxxx since a transfer was not automatic if an officer had an unexpired contract.
  7. Under CPOD procedures an officer with an unexpired RSP contract would have to complete such a contract before transferring to another service. At the time Xxxxxxx requested transfer to the xxxxxxxx, he did not have an RSP contract in effect. CPOD procedures would have permitted pro-ration of an unexpired contract. 
  8. Xxxxxxx received an RSP contract when the program was initially started. The Board members believed he was sufficiently knowledgeable of the program to have taken those actions necessary to have obtained an approved RSP contract, after XXX told him he would not be recommended, and after a considerable period of time elapsed, but he did not receive his RSP bonus.


The members of the Board concluded that Xxxxxxx was not entitled to payment for RSP coverage as he contended. Xxxxxxx did not have a contract in place when he applied for transfer to the Xxxxxxxxxx. The procedures followed by CPOD permitted Xxxxxxx to have been considered for a contract regardless of the actions taken or not taken by XXX management officals.


After consideration of all information presented, the recommendation of the members of the Board for Correction is that Xxxxxxx request be denied. Approval of the recommendation requires no change in Xxxxxxx record.

Anyone wishing to obtain an un-redacted copy of any of the decisions should submit a request for the un-redacted decision under the federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Such requests should be directed to the PHS FOIA Office, Parklawn Building, Room 17 A-46, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857; telephone 301-443-5252; fax 301-443-0925.