RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  96-00309
            INDEX CODE:  113.04

            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Active Duty Service Commitment Date (ADSCD) be changed from  5 September
1995 to 22 June 1995 and  he  be  granted  participation  in  the  Voluntary
Separation Incentive (VSI) program.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He attended the Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT)  and  graduated  in
September 1991.  In April 1994, he applied for  the  FY  1995  VSI  Program.
His  application  was  in  processing  for  a  couple  of  months  and   was
subsequently returned to him without action.  When he  inquired  as  to  the
reason he was ineligible to participate in the program, he was advised  that
the commitment he acquired at AFIT made him ineligible for the program.   He
accepted this decision and decided to stay in the Air Force.

In October 1995, he elected to separate under the 7-day option  rather  than
to accept a nonvolunteer assignment.  He subsequently learned  of  the  case
of a classmate of his whose commitment was changed upon appeal based upon  a
15-month program.  The revised commitment end-date  made  him  retroactively
eligible for the VSI program.  This individual had been advised he  too  was
ineligible for the VSI.   He  researched  the  commitment  computations  and
discovered they were calculated based  on  their  AFIT  Officer  Performance
Review (OPR)  dates  instead  of  the  advertised  15-month  length  of  the
Graduate  Systems  Management  Degree   Program.    Calculating   the   AFIT
commitment based on 15 months placed his last day of commitment  before  the
ending date of the VSI program, thus qualifying him for the VSI.  There  was
a 25-day difference between the number of  days  in  15  months  versus  the
inclusive AFIT Training Report dates.  This  difference  was  attributed  to
administrative time and was not  calculated  by  the  3  for  1  ADSC.   His
classmate’s reasoning was accepted by HQ  AFPC  (formerly  AFMPC)  and  they
changed his end-of-AFIT commitment date and  accepted  his  application  for
the VSI program.  When he (the applicant) found  out  about  the  above,  he
asked for the same consideration.  Following investigation by  HQ  AFPC,  he
was advised no one  knew  how  his  classmate  had  changed  his  ADSCD  and
received the VSI but that he (the applicant) was  ineligible  based  on  his
current ADSCD.  He  was  told  no  further  discussion  on  the  matter  was
possible.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a personal  statement,  his
computation of his time enrolled  in  AFIT,  and  copies  of  documents  and
correspondence associated with the matter under review (Exhibit A).

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 27 May 1987, having graduated from the Air Force Academy,  the  applicant
was appointed a second lieutenant, Regular Air Force,  and  was  ordered  to
extended active duty.   He  was  progressively  promoted  to  the  grade  of
captain, effective and with a date of rank of 27 May 1991.

On 23 May 1990, the applicant signed an AF  Form  63,  Officer  Active  Duty
Service Commitment (ADSC) Counseling Statement,  in  which  he  acknowledged
that he was incurring an ADSC of “EAD ADSC plus  length  of  training  or  3
times the length whichever longer with maximum (4  years  for  undergraduate
or masters)” for AFIT Professional  Education.   The  HQ  AFPC/DPPRP  stated
that the applicant attended AFIT from 27 May 1990 to 20 September 1991.

Information maintained in the Personnel Data  System  (PDS)  indicates  that
the applicant was  assigned  to  duties  as  a  graduate  student  at  AFIT,
effective 24 May 1990 and that he was reassigned to duties  as  a  Technical
Assessment Project Officer, effective 28 October 1991.  He had an  ADSCD  of
5 September 1995 for his AFIT education.  On  1 November  1995,  he  applied
for separation in lieu of reassignment.  On 31 May 1996, he  was  discharged
from the Regular Air Force and, on 1 June 1996,  was  appointed  a  captain,
Reserve  of  the  Air  Force,  and  was   assigned   to   the   Nonobligated
Nonparticipating Ready Personnel Section (NNRPS).  He  is  credited  with  9
years and 4 days of total Federal commissioned service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The ADSC/CDA Procedures Section, HQ AFPC/DPPRP,  reviewed  this  application
and recommended denial.  DPPRP indicated that AFI 36-2107, Table  1.6,  Rule
2, clearly states that the ADSC for AFIT will be calculated as  “The  Active
Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) for Extended Active Duty  (EAD)  plus  length
of training or three times the length of training but not more than 4  years
for undergraduate or graduate education  at  master’s  level,  whichever  is
longer.  DPPRP provided two calculations for the ADSC  and  indicated  that,
based on the maximum allowable ADSC, the applicant’s ADSCD  was  established
as 19 September 1995.  DPPRP  noted  that  the  applicant  acknowledged  and
agreed to this ADSC by signing the AF Form 63, Officer Active  Duty  Service
Commitment (ADSC) Counseling Statement.  DPPRP indicated that the  ADSC  for
AFIT is calculated based on the entire training period of the program.  Non-
school days do not come into the  calculation  process.   Additionally,  the
calculation is not based on the number of months in the program.

In summary, DPPRP indicated  that  the  applicant’s  ADSC  was  computed  in
accordance with the standard method for computing  AFIT  commitments.   They
believe that to grant the applicant’s request would be unfair to  all  other
officers who attend and complete an AFIT program.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, The  Programs  and  Procedures  Branch,  HQ
AFPC/DPPRP,   provided   additional   advisory   opinions   addressing   the
applicant’s rebuttal concerning the issue that  an  alternative  methodology
was used to compute the AFIT ADSC for his classmate.

DPPRP stated that there is no  approved  “alternative”  to  AFI  36-2107  to
compute the active duty service commitment (ADSC) for  Air  Force  Institute
of Technology  (AFIT).   DPPRP  stated  that  if  an  unofficial,  erroneous
alternative was used to  re-compute  and  reduce  another  service  member’s
ADSC, DPPRP is unaware of it and would likely not  concur  with  it.   DPPRP
indicated that if the applicant believes that non-academic days  should  not
be factored into the ADSC computation, then they suggest that non-duty  time
should not be counted in calculating the discharge of  the  ADSC  and  leave
and weekends should be deducted from the service credit since completion  of
AFIT (see Exhibit C).
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  applicant  reviewed  the  advisory  opinion  and  indicated   that   an
alternative methodology for arriving  at  the  AFIT  ADSC  was  successfully
argued by his  classmate  and  he  believes  he  should  receive  consistent
consideration.  He believes that, in the  interest  of  fairness,  the  rule
used for his classmate should be applied to his situation (see Exhibit E).

The applicant reviewed the additional advisory opinion  and  disagrees  with
the assertion that he used an “alternative” to AFI 36-2107  to  compute  his
AFSC for AFIT.  He computed his ADSC based on the  15-month  length  of  the
AFIT program.  His argument is based upon the  15-month  program  length  of
time versus the “entire training period of the program”  which  included  25
additional administrative processing days.  This was  the  same  methodology
used by his AFIT classmate to compute his (classmate’s) ADSC to qualify  for
the VSI program.  He requests the Board review his  case  in  light  of  the
accepted methodology used in his classmate’s case and change  his  ADSCD  to
22 June 1995; and, that his original application  for  the  VSI  program  be
granted based on his revised ADSCD (see 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 probable error  or  injustice.   In  our  deliberation  of  the
applicant’s case, we carefully  and  thoroughly  reviewed  the  evidence  of
record and applicant’s submission.  The  applicant’s  contentions  are  duly
noted; however, we do not find  these  assertions,  in  and  by  themselves,
sufficiently persuasive to  override  the  rationale  provided  by  the  Air
Force.  Other than his own assertions,  no  substantial  evidence  has  been
provided to support the applicant’s contention that his Active Duty  Service
Commitment Date (ADSCD) for the Air Force  Institute  of  Technology  (AFIT)
was  calculated  incorrectly.   We  note  that  the  applicant’s  ADSCD  was
calculated in accordance with  the  governing  Air  Force  regulation.   The
applicant asserted that he has  been  treated  differently  than  a  similar
situated individual and  has  cited  the  circumstances  of  another  former
classmate to support his assertion.  A  review  of  the  former  classmate’s
records  did  not  reveal  any  documentation  to  indicate  a   unique   or
alternative method was used in calculating his ADSCD  for  AFIT.   In  fact,
the contract signed by that individual was identical to the  one  signed  by
the applicant.  No evidence has been provided to  show  that  an  “approved”
alternative method was used to calculate the former classmate’s  ADSCD.   In
addition, it is our opinion that even if  a  mistake  was  made  in  another
individual’s  case  by  allowing  that  individual  to  separate  prior   to
completion of a valid ADSC, this fact does not  render  the  commitments  of
the applicant and other officers who attended AFIT during that period to  be
the victims of an error or injustice  warranting  approval  of  relief.   In
view of the foregoing and absent persuasive evidence  to  the  contrary,  we
find no compelling basis to recommend granting the  relief  sought  in  this
application.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate
the existence of probable material error or injustice; that the  application
was denied without a personal appearance;  and  that  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 this application in  Executive
Session on 13 May 1997 and 17 November 1998, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:

                  Mr. Douglas J. Heady, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Frederick R. Beaman III , Member
                  Mr. Jackson A. Hauslein, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 24 Jan 95, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letters, HQ AFPC/DPPRP, dated 28 Mar 96, w/atch,
                 10 Feb 97 and 20 Aug 97, w/atch,.
   Exhibit D.  Letters, SAF/MIBR, dated 29 Apr 96, and 17 Feb 97;
                 AFBCMR, dated, 3 Jun 97 and 2 Oct 97.
   Exhibit E.  Letters from applicant, dated 25 May 96,
                 10 Mar 97, w/atch, and 2 Nov 97.




                                   DOUGLAS J. HEADY
                                   Panel Chair