Physicians' ADSC Arbitrarily Increased Without Warning

MedicalCorpse · Aug 30, 2006

To all Med Students (HPSP, USU) and prospective Med Students:

The U.S. military is so desperate for bodies, and has done such a pathetic job of retaining trained and experienced medical officers, it will stop at nothing to fill the ranks without improving pay, working conditions, infrastructure, morale, or patient care.

You have heard of the Stop Loss policy, whereby the military prevents people from leaving even when their ADSC (Active Duty Service Commitment) is up. This includes officers who have served their twenty years, and would be eligible for retirement, if the Armed Forces let them retire.

You are probably aware of the IRR small print in your contracts, which states that, after you pay back your ADSC, you are still owned by Uncle Sam until 8 years have elapsed.

You may have heard that all ex-officer retirees can be involuntarily recalled to active duty for as long as they live (an Andrews medic told me he helped air-evac an 86 year old psychologist from downrange a few months ago).

But did you know...that the military is right now increasing payback time for physicians who elected to do fellowships by a year...without telling them? That's right, friends: a written contract with the military means nothing, if one stroke of a pen at the Pentagon can "renegotiate" the time you owe without your knowledge or input.

Read the following e-mail and weep for the loss of integrity and honor in what used to be a proud institution: The U.S. Armed Forces Medical Corps(e). Then, to use an Air Force term: Check Your Six (Watch Your Back).

http://www.medicalcorpse.com/ADSCincreased.html

--
Rob Jones, M.D.
ex-LtCol, USAF, MC
http://www.medicalcorpse.com

Galo · Aug 31, 2006

What possible explanation could the defenders of military medicine come up with now.

Is this really true, can it be possible?? NOTHING is impossible when you have monumentally magnificent *****s running the show. I hope this is shocking to those learning about what military medicine is all about. If it is not, call your recruiter immediately!!

IgD · Aug 31, 2006

Here is what the Navy GME website has to say about service obligation:

Summary of Active Duty Obligation (ADO) for Graduate Medical Education

In a Military Facility (FTIS/OFI). A member shall incur an ADO of ½ year for each ½ year, or portion thereof, but the minimum ADO at the completion of the GME period shall not be less than 2 years. The ADO for GME may be served concurrently with obligations incurred for DOD Sponsored pre-professional (undergraduate) or medical school education.

No active duty obligation for GME can be served concurrent with an ADO for a second period of GME, i.e., obligation for fellowship cannot be served concurrent with an obligation incurred for residency training.

In a Civilian Facility on Active Duty (FTOS). A member subsidized by the DOD during training in a civilian facility shall incur an ADO of ½ year for each ½ year, or portion thereof, but the minimum ADO at the completion of the GME period shall not be less than 2 years.

ADOs for FTOS training are added to obligation existing at the time training begins.

In a Civilian Facility In a Deferred Status (NADDS). A member deferred for specialty training incurs no additional obligation as long as a 2-year obligation exists at the time the training begins. Members with less than 2 years of active duty obligation will incur a minimum 2-year ADO.

My interpretation of this is that by doing a fellowship (civilian or military) you incur a minimum of 2 years additional service obligation. If you owe any time before the fellowship, it just gets tacked on to the end.

Rob, how is that different than the allegations made in your post?

MedicalCorpse · Aug 31, 2006

IgD said:
Here is what the Navy GME website has to say about service obligation:

The surgeon claims that an additional year has been arbitrarily added to his ADSC. That is why they are resigning and seeking counsel. I am requesting additional data. More info when I get it.

--
R

militarymd · Aug 31, 2006

I did a fellowship in critical care medicine after my anesthesia residency. I was made clear to me that although the fellowship is only 1 year long, the obligation incurred will be 2 years......and because the fellowship is civilian, none of my prior obligation was paid back in any concurrent manner.

Are the surgeons being screwed in a different way?

colbgw02 · Sep 1, 2006

recent residency graduate at my medcen somehow got a 1:1 obligation with only 1 year minimum written into his fellowship contract. when they told him they would have to change it to make the minimum 2 years, he was able to back out. don't know how indicative that is of overall policy...

MedicalCorpse · Sep 1, 2006

MedicalCorpse said:
The surgeon claims that an additional year has been arbitrarily added to his ADSC. That is why they are resigning and seeking counsel. I am requesting additional data. More info when I get it.

Still waiting for more information. Stand by. Thanks.

--
R

MedicalCorpse · Sep 1, 2006

MedicalCorpse said:
Still waiting for more information. Stand by. Thanks.

In the meantime, this is how the USAF routinely tries to screw extra time from physicians: concurrent vs. consecutive

http://boards.law.af.mil/cgi-bin/quickview.cgi?filename=AF/BCMR/CY2000/9902230.doc

Note "Air Force Evaluation" sections (he should have declined the training 2 days before it started, and he's only making a stink because of money, not because he is sick of being hosed by an unjust system lacking in integrity, administered by undertrained drones lacking in intelligence who mess up "consecutive" vs. "concurrent" on ADSC contracts).

--
R

MedicalCorpse · Sep 3, 2006

MedicalCorpse said:
Still waiting for more information. Stand by. Thanks.

--
R

More info just in. From what I can gather, it seems clear that the military is trying to get 3 years of service out of docs who have signed contracts for an additional 2 years ADSC due to fellowships, just because the military can't retain any physicians, let alone specialist surgeons who command big bucks on the outside.

http://www.medicalcorpse.com/ADSCincreased.html

Galo · Sep 3, 2006

I think this is so DAMN unbelievable, people who had experiences as bad as ex milmd are having a hard time swallowing it.

THE ARMY IS ABITRARILY ADDING ON AN ADDITIONAL YEAR OF ACTIVE DUTY SERVICE COMMITMENT TO THESE SURGEONS!!!!!

This is one of the most clear and evident abuses of the system yet.

If for some wierd reason I have misunderstood this completely, then I blame it on my bad experiences and fully apologize to the army surgeon general, or whomever came up with this idea.

7by11thenout · Sep 3, 2006

This does not suprise me at all. I expect to get out when my committmment is up, however we will be in full scale war with Iran at that time probably and either we will be fighting armageddon or so some of us christians believe - sorry my Pagan friend, - to inflict my religious beliefs on this military forum, but you are well studied in my Bibles end times predictions so you hopefully understand where I am coming from.

The point is we are never getting out - ever - ever, ok I have reached despair and despiration and depression

Later

RichL025 · Sep 3, 2006

So let me get this straight....

You guys have already tried and convicted Military Medicine (some malevolent entity) based on the fact that 80 or so MDs got sent a spreadsheet with a typo?

I read Medical Corpse's webpage, and as far as I understand, 5 of these physicians are already out of the military!!!

Is there a single one who has been retained on active duty one iota longer than his previous contract?

From everything you guys have posted, it seems like someone at GME office has a poor vocabulary (confusing the definitions of "consecutive" and "concurrent") and that right now, the 'system' is working to correct their mistake.

Yeah, I bet it's frustrating for those 80 to have to file IG reports & congressional investigations, but has there been ANY inkling that someone who has a contract that says "Dec 2006" has been kept in the military against their wishes?

One case?

Galo · Sep 3, 2006

RichL025 said:
So let me get this straight....

You guys have already tried and convicted Military Medicine (some malevolent entity) based on the fact that 80 or so MDs got sent a spreadsheet with a typo?

I read Medical Corpse's webpage, and as far as I understand, 5 of these physicians are already out of the military!!!

Is there a single one who has been retained on active duty one iota longer than his previous contract?

From everything you guys have posted, it seems like someone at GME office has a poor vocabulary (confusing the definitions of "consecutive" and "concurrent") and that right now, the 'system' is working to correct their mistake.

Yeah, I bet it's frustrating for those 80 to have to file IG reports & congressional investigations, but has there been ANY inkling that someone who has a contract that says "Dec 2006" has been kept in the military against their wishes?

One case?

Where you been hiding rich?

Good question!! As I read the complaint this surgeon sent, its pretty ovious that someone made a mistake to potentially cost them an additional year of active duty. I do not think there is any other way to interpret it. So yes, many of us with similar experiences have condemed them because we do not put something like this past them, and apparently that is exactly what they are trying to do.

It seems from the updates on the website, that someone has made an egregious mistake, and they now need to fix it.

MedicalCorpse · Sep 3, 2006

MedicalCorpse · Sep 3, 2006

RichL025 said:
So let me get this straight....

This may be a change for you. Take it slow.

RichL025 said:
You guys have already tried and convicted Military Medicine (some malevolent entity) based on the fact that 80 or so MDs got sent a spreadsheet with a typo?

Will use small words. Was not bad type on page. Was change in thing in black and white. "Contract" thing ripped up. Why? To screw docs to stay in. You think they hire law dweebs if just wrong words in that file thing? Not!

RichL025 said:
I read Medical Corpse's webpage, and as far as I understand, 5 of these physicians are already out of the military!!!

4 of these docs said to big boys with hats: "Bye Bye. I go now!" When told of bad thing the big boys want to do, just 'cause big boys can, so they thought. But if all good docs go "Bye" when bad things done, who will be left? Bad docs, I think.

RichL025 said:
Is there a single one who has been retained on active duty one iota longer than his previous contract?

Know lots of folks in these shoes. We call this thing "Stop Loss". You will know this too, when your time comes.

RichL025 said:
From everything you guys have posted, it seems like someone at GME office has a poor vocabulary (confusing the definitions of "consecutive" and "concurrent") and that right now, the 'system' is working to correct their mistake.

Even my pet chimp, Chimp, writes and reads words more good than that. Not bad thoughts in heads of HQ dweebs...bad hearts. Want docs stay in more...more work good...less pay, more work, more good. Less pay, more work, no choice: best, they think. Black hearts bad. Bad, I say! You say this "sys-tem" thing works to make bad good. You stay in more years, you will find: bad is never made good; bad just gets more bad. More bad all the time. You will see. They do not care what docs think or feel. They just want feet on dirt when they want, where they want, no talk. No talk! First rule: No talk.

RichL025 said:
Yeah, I bet it's frustrating for those 80 to have to file IG reports & congressional investigations, but has there been ANY inkling that someone who has a contract that says "Dec 2006" has been kept in the military against their wishes?

Thing said 6 to 8. Now they want 9. 8 good. 8 fair. 8 on page. 9 bad. 9 not fair. 9 not on page. But 9 is what big boys want. So 9 is what big boys with hats try to get. Screw docs with smart heads and quick hands. Screw docs with big things after names. We are big boys with hats. War now. We do what we want. No one find out. Men like Rich think we do no bad. Men like Rich use big words, write to say we not bad, just folks don't know what we think. Not bad men with big hats...chimps who can't read. It's 'K, go to sleep now. Big boys with hats know best at all times. Shh. Go to sleeeeeeeeeep now.

RichL025 said:
One case?

Good thing Rich not read good. Rich make fine big hat man one day. If I use things on hands, would be eight of ten things and eight more...not same as one. If one, not so mad. If one, docs work too much, not talk big words to law folks. If one, I would not care one bit (yawn), not on my site.

Hail to Rich! He my God. He make fine big hat man one day.

--
R

RichL025 · Sep 3, 2006

Galo said:
Where you been hiding rich?

Hey, Galo! - Been working... I'm sure you can remember your first PGY, right?... "livin the dream..."

So yes, many of us with similar experiences have condemed them because we do not put something like this past them, and apparently that is exactly what they are trying to do.

It seems from the updates on the website, that someone has made an egregious mistake, and they now need to fix it.

And as always, I maintain that by crying wolf at every little jot and tittle, you (plural "you" that is...) are diluting any valid complaints you may have.

If some infantryman in Baquba happened to notice that his LES had an incorrect ETS date, he wouldn't scream that Uncle Sam was out to get him- he would file a pay inquiry, include a copy of his latest contract, and rectify the situation. Certainly physicians with larger financial assets and education could set right an obvious clerical error without screaming "CONSPIRACY".....

Or maybe they can't

RichL025 · Sep 3, 2006

MedicalCorpse said:
This may be a change for you. Take it slow.

Will use small words. Was not bad type on page. Was change in thing in black and white. "Contract" thing ripped up. Why? To screw docs to stay in. You think they hire law dweebs if just wrong words in that file thing? Not!

Funny guy. You must be new to this whole internet thing. I only point that out, because it's generally accepted that whenever one side of an argument resorts to ad hominem attacks, it's because their argument can't stand on it's merits.

If this was your attitude when you were on active duty, no wonder you had problems.

Know lots of folks in these shoes. We call this thing "Stop Loss". You will know this too, when your time comes.

Completely different. Stop loss negates all contracts, and you are implying that the contract was changed after being in effect.

I am competely sympathetic to arguments against stop-loss. You, however, are claiming something else entirely.

Good thing Rich not read good. Rich make fine big hat man one day. If using things on hands, would be eight of ten things and eight more...not same as one. If one, not so mad. If one, not getting law folks. If one, not even care (yawn), not on my site.

I'm not quite sure what brought this whole stream-of-curious-George-consciousness thing on, but I can only assume you are one of those emporers who don't like being shown they are naked.

I'm sorry for offending you, Oh Emperor. All of us minions will go back to worshiping at your altar, now....

(Oh, and there's probably a few spelling errors in my posts, if you want you can point those out and make fun of me for them also... another last refuge of internet arguments....)

MedicalCorpse · Sep 4, 2006

RichL025 said:
Funny guy. You must be new to this whole internet thing.

(snarf) Bwahahaha! If you only knew...

RichL025 said:
Completely different. Stop loss negates all contracts, and you are implying that the contract was changed after being in effect.

I am competely sympathetic to arguments against stop-loss. You, however, are claiming something else entirely.

Res ipsa loquitur.

RichL025 said:
...emporers who don't like being shown they are naked.

Imagine that I'm from Missouri. Show me. Show me that this active duty specialist surgeon and his 87 colleagues are lying. Show me.

RichL025 said:
I'm sorry for offending you, Oh Emperor. All of us minions will go back to worshiping at your altar, now....

Right, off you go, then. Leave the usual offering behind. Nevertheless, try not to sing in such a high frequency when you extol my beneficence to the wide universe, will you? The dogs cringe so, you know.

--
R

Galo · Sep 4, 2006

Rich,

Common now, this is more than just a little mistake, if its that at all. What would you do if truly your EAD time was arbitrarily increased by one year after you decided and got to do a fellowship?? This is more than just a mistake, and granted it seems that this is the first I hear of this, but this if a big deal!!

Anyways, keep your ears open, and watch your six. Don't know how they say that in the army other than watch your ass!

Get working, and learning, and keep your mind and your ears open. I'm afraid you too will face some of the situations you now do not take too seriously, and because you know about them, you may be able to react differently, but they will still suck.

Keep up posted

RichL025 · Sep 4, 2006

Galo said:
Rich,

Common now, this is more than just a little mistake, if its that at all. What would you do if truly your EAD time was arbitrarily increased by one year after you decided and got to do a fellowship??

I would make sure I retained a copy of my original contract (

) and engage a lawyer as necessary. And as much as I can decipher R Carlton Jones's posts, that looks like it's what they're doing.

I've had to do the IG / congressional route once previous in my career - dosen't mean I thought the whole army was out to screw me, it just meant I thought some of the garrison weenies were, so I utilized my legal recourses to fight back (I lost, BTW) - just like what these docs are doing.

You know, I never did see - are you in a civilian practice now?

Rich

Galo · Sep 4, 2006

RichL025 said:
I would make sure I retained a copy of my original contract ( ) and engage a lawyer as necessary. And as much as I can decipher R Carlton Jones's posts, that looks like it's what they're doing.

I've had to do the IG / congressional route once previous in my career - dosen't mean I thought the whole army was out to screw me, it just meant I thought some of the garrison weenies were, so I utilized my legal recourses to fight back (I lost, BTW) - just like what these docs are doing.

You know, I never did see - are you in a civilian practice now?

Rich

Yes, I will make a post about that in the near future, again as a warning, lesson, whatever. The grass is not always greener, but it its green.

Take care

Physicians' ADSC Arbitrarily Increased Without Warning

MilMed: It's Dead, Jim

Senior Member

The Lorax

MilMed: It's Dead, Jim

SDN Angel

Delightfully Tacky

MilMed: It's Dead, Jim

MilMed: It's Dead, Jim

MilMed: It's Dead, Jim

Senior Member

Full Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

MilMed: It's Dead, Jim

MilMed: It's Dead, Jim

Senior Member

Senior Member

MilMed: It's Dead, Jim

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Similar threads