RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-02365
            INDEX CODE:  113.04
      APPLICANT  COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) of 12  February  2002  be  deleted
from his personnel records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was verbally counseled that no ADSC would  be  incurred  beyond  31 March
2000 for training in the C-141.  Therefore, no AF Form 63 or  counseling  to
the contrary occurred (as required by AFI 36-2107).  After training, he  was
notified by a Report on Individual Personnel (RIP) that  an  ADSC  had  been
incurred beyond 31 March 2000.

Applicant’s statement and documentary evidence submitted in support  of  his
application are included as Exhibit A with Attachments 1 through 3.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant  completed  C-141  Initial  Qualification  Training  (IQT)  on  18
February  1997.   In  accordance  with  AFI  36-2107,  Table  1.5,  Rule  1,
completion of C-141 IQT incurs a five-year ADSC.   Therefore,  his  ADSC  is
established as 17 February 2002.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommends that the application be denied.   It  is  indicated
that Air Force policy is that officers receive  ADSCs  voluntarily  and,  if
they are unwilling to accept the ADSC, they are to elect separation in  lieu
of undergoing the training.  They are  normally  advised  of  the  ADSCs  in
writing and their acknowledgment of their understanding  and  acceptance  of
the ADSC is normally documented in writing on AF Form  63  (ADSC  Counseling
Statement).   Occasionally,  this  procedure  is  not  followed   in   exact
accordance with delineated procedures.  In those cases, the Air Force  still
awards the ADSC as the vast majority have been incurred with  the  officer’s
full understanding and willing acceptance.  The onus is on  the  officer  to
prove that he or she unwittingly incurred an ADSC for  training  they  would
not have accepted had they been aware of the  ADSC  prior  to  entering  the
training.

While  documentation  of  the  officer’s  awareness  of  the  ADSC  provides
ironclad proof that the counseling was accomplished in a timely  manner  and
that the officer voluntarily accepted the ADSC, it is not the  documentation
of counseling that establishes the ADSC, but rather the  completion  of  the
ADSC-incurring event that determines  and  incurs  the  ADSC.   Indeed,  the
instruction recognizes that documentation is  not  always  accomplished  and
yet still directs the update of the ADSC.  Clearly, the intent  of  the  Air
Force is that officers make informed decisions regarding  the  incurring  of
ADSCs and the critical issue is whether  adequate  information  is  provided
the officer before he or  she  enters  into  an  ADSC-incurring  event,  not
whether the officer signed  any  particular  document  to  memorialize  that
awareness.

HQ AFPC/DPPRS further  states  that  although  documentation  of  the  C-141
counseling does not exist and applicant  indicates  he  was  never  informed
about the five-year ADSC, they believe it is a reasonable  presumption  that
he was in fact aware of the ADSC which would be incurred.  They  base  their
presumption on the mandatory procedures  in  effect  whereby  the  applicant
would have been put on notice of the five-year C-141 ADSC.  They  also  note
that the association of  a  five-year  ADSC  for  IQT  is  very  well  known
throughout the rated community.  Further, they believe  that  it  is  highly
unlikely that the applicant  could  have  entered  and  then  completed  IQT
without encountering at least informed  discussions  about  the  ADSC  among
classmates or instructors.  Lastly, they note that the applicant has  failed
to categorically claim that (1) he had no knowledge of  the  five-year  ADSC
prior to incurring it and (2) had he  had  that  knowledge,  he  would  have
declined to accept the training rather than incur the  additional  ADSC.   A
complete copy of  the  advisory  opinion  is  included  as  Exhibit  C  with
Attachments 1 through 3.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant  states,  in  part,   that   the   crux   of   his   argument   is
straightforward.  He was involuntarily extended as a C-21 pilot to help  the
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) program of 1993, under the promise  that
his next assignment would not extend his overall commitment  past  31  March
2000.   Upon  processing  for  the  next  assignment,  the  ADSC  specialist
confirmed that no additional commitment past  31  March  2000  would  ensue.
For this reason, no AF Form  63  was  completed.   After  training  for  his
assignment,  a  five-year  commitment  was  added  to  his  records  without
warning.

In the summer of 1993, the BRAC 93  Committee  selected  his  C-21  unit  at
Eglin AFB for closure.  He had been a pilot in the unit  for  one  year  and
AFPC told him that he would be involuntarily extended in the C-21 (a  career
damaging move, by anyone’s standards) versus having the opportunity to  move
to a Major Weapons System (MWS), such as a C-141.   No  other  options  were
provided.

The involuntary extension pushed back his transition to a MWS,  which  meant
that his MWS initial training commitment would extend him past his  original
commitment (31 March 2000) that he received from pilot training.  To  pacify
his concerns, AFPC promised him that they were drafting a policy  letter  to
be put in his personnel file, which would provide  him  with  ADSC  immunity
(since he had helped them in this difficult situation).  This  letter  would
provide him with special treatment when he  cross-trained  to  his  MWS,  so
that the new ADSC incurred would not surpass 31 March 2000.

Being an innocent and trusting  young  lieutenant,  he  thought  the  letter
would be produced and placed in his personnel file as promised.  He did  not
bother to record any details because he believed  the  letter  itself  would
provide all the essential documentation.

Three  years  later,  upon  completion  of  his  involuntary  extension,  he
received  his  MWS  assignment  as  expected.   During  his  processing  for
training, he visited his ADSC counselor at his departure base  as  required.
He never raised the issue of the “immunity  letter”  since  he  assumed  his
records reflected it.  The ADSC counselor informed him  that  no  commitment
past 31 March 2000 would  be  incurred.   No  further  ADSC  counseling  was
accomplished.  As shown on the out-processing checklist (AF Form  330)  that
he included with his original application, no Form 63 was completed  (It  is
marked “N/A”) and this is why no Form 63 exists  in  his  personnel  records
for his MWS training.  This was what AFPC had promised  him  back  in  1993.
His expectations had been fully met and he thought, at the time,  that  AFPC
had made good on its vow to him.

After completing MWS training, he  began  flying  the  C-141  with  his  new
squadron at      AFB,     , where he is currently  assigned.   Over  a  year
elapsed since reporting to his unit when he received a computer printout  in
his mailbox.  This printout, a RIP, showed  a  five-year  ADSC  for  initial
training in the C-141.

In the advisory opinion, the  advisory  writer  comments  that,  “ADSCs  for
flying training are normally updated automatically upon graduation from  the
training course, via the AFTMS.”  This explains  why  the  ADSC  caught  him
blind-sided.   He believes this unpleasant  surprise  is  exactly  what  the
Form 63 process is meant to prevent.

This unexpected five-year commitment extended him past 31 March 2000  to  12
February 2002.  He was confused at first.   He called AFPC  to  confirm  the
RIP.   He was told that the RIP date was correct because the  AFPC  computer
showed the same date.  He asked the personnel clerk at  AFPC  to  check  his
paper records to see where the ADSC had come from and was  told,  “...that’s
interesting, there is no  Form  63  or  paperwork  for  the  ADSC,  but  the
computer shows it, so it must be correct....”

Further investigation has provided some  insight.   He  ordered  a  complete
copy of his master personnel records.  It contains no BRAC 93  letter.   Was
it removed from his records at AFPC’s convenience?  Was  it  placed  in  his
records to begin with?  He will probably never know.

To summarize, not only was he never told to  expect  a  five-year  ADSC  for
training, he was actually told just the  opposite!   First  by  AFPC  during
BRAC 93 and later during  his  processing  for  training.   In  both  cases,
personnel  specialists  whom  he  trusted  as  experts  in   their   fields,
specifically told him that no commitment would be  incurred  past  31  March
2000.  Applicant’s complete statement is included as 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.    Sufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of probable error or injustice warranting favorable action on  the
applicant’s request.  Applicant contends  that  he  was  verbally  counseled
that no ADSC would be incurred beyond 31 March 2000 for training in  the  C-
141; that no Air Force Form 63 or counseling to the contrary  occurred;  and
that, after the training, he was advised by a RIP  that  an  ADSC  had  been
incurred beyond 31 March 2000.  In his rebuttal  of  the  advisory  opinion,
applicant asserts for the first time that he was involuntarily  extended  as
a C-21 pilot to help the Base Realignment  and  Closure  (BRAC)  program  of
1993, under the promise that  his  next  assignment  would  not  extend  his
overall commitment past 31 March 2000; that upon  processing  for  the  next
assignment, the ADSC specialist  confirmed  that  no  additional  commitment
past 31 March 2000 would ensue; and that, for this reason,  no  AF  Form  63
was completed.  In support of his contention, he submits  an  AF  Form  330,
out-processing checklist, purportedly signed by an official  from  his  MPF,
dated 5 November  1996,  indicating  that  neither  the  AF  Form  63  (ADSC
Counseling  Statement),  nor  the  ADSC  Statement  of   Understanding   was
applicable to his C-141 IQT assignment.

4.    We recognize that the applicant’s assertion that he was promised  that
his next assignment would not extend beyond 31 March  2000  because  he  was
involuntarily extended as a C-21 pilot to help the BRAC program of 1993  can
neither  be  confirmed  nor  refuted  at  this  late  date.   And,  had  the
applicant’s case been predicated solely on  this  uncorroborated  assertion,
we may have reached a different result.   The  indisputable  facts  remains,
however, that there is not one shred of evidence to show that the  applicant
was timely apprised of the C-141 IQT  ADSC  and  given  the  opportunity  of
voluntarily incurring the five-year service commitment  as  contemplated  by
Air Force policy.  Moreover,  the  only  hard  evidence  we  have  tends  to
support the fact that the applicant was advised that he would not incur  the
ADSC in question by an official source; i.e., an individual in his  MPF  who
indicated that ADSC counseling was not applicable for  his  impending  C-141
IQT assignment.  In view of the foregoing and having no  basis  to  question
the applicant’s integrity, we believe that the benefit of any  doubt  should
be resolved in his favor.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air  Force  relating
to APPLICANT be corrected to show that the  five-year  Active  Duty  Service
Commitment (ADSC) incurred as a result of his completion  of  C-141  Initial
Qualification Training (IQT) on 18 February 1997, be declared void.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in  Executive
Session 15 January 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

            Mr. Benedict A. Kausal, IV, Panel Chair
            Mr. Charles E. Bennett, Member
            Mr. Henry Romo, Jr., Member

All members voted to correct the records,  as  recommended.   The  following
documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 14 Aug 98, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 14 Sep 98.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 28 Sep 98.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 26 Oct 98.




                                   BENEDICT A. KAUSAL, IV
                                   Panel Chair

INDEX CODE:  113.04

                                                         February 16, 1999

AFBCMR 98-02365




MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

      Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force
Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section
1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:

      The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that the five-year Active Duty
Service Commitment (ADSC) incurred as a result of his completion of C-141
Initial Qualification Training (IQT) on 18 February 1997, be, and hereby
is, declared void.







                                        JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                        Director
                                        Air Force Review Boards Agency