RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-02610
            INDEX CODE: 113.04

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC)  be  changed  back  to  23 January
1999 as opposed to 14 May 1999.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

When he came back on active duty (24 January 1997), he spoke with  Ms.  “B”,
the military personnel staffing technician assigned to his in-processing  at
the Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC).  Before he made  any  commitment,  he
was told by this individual that he only owed a two-year ADSC which  ran  to
23 January 1999.  When in-processing at Hurlburt Field, FL, he  again  asked
what his ADSC was and was told two years.   The  sergeant  who  in-processed
him at Hurlburt told him once his data was input in  the  system,  he  would
get back to him with a confirmed date.

In  July  1998,  he  put  in  an  application  for  Palace  Chase  and   was
subsequently turned down.  He found out that AFPC had changed  his  ADSC  to
14 May 1999.  This new date is not acceptable to  him  and  will  cause  him
great  hardship.   He  has  been  offered  a  full-time  C-130  Air  Reserve
Technician job at Keesler AFB, MS.  He will lost this job if he is  extended
beyond his 23 January 1999 date.  First, he knows that he did not  sign  any
commitment past his original two years.  Second, if he knew  his  commitment
was going to be greater than two years, he  would  not  have  gone  back  on
active duty or would  have  selected  another  aircraft  without  the  extra
commitment.   Applicant’s  complete  statement  and   documentary   evidence
submitted in support of his  application  is  included  as  Exhibit  A  with
Attachments 1 through 3.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant, a major, applied for the Voluntary  Extended  Active  Duty  (EAD)
Recall for Navigators and Electronic Warfare Officers on  10 February  1996,
under the rules of engagement established by HQ USAF/DPOX message,  dated  4
January 1996.  He was relieved from his Reserve assignment  and  ordered  to
active duty with an effective date of duty of 24 January 1997.  He  incurred
a two-year ADSC which expires on 23 January 1999.

Since he has been selected for promotion to  major  while  assigned  to  the
Reserve unit, his date of rank as a major became the date he entered  active
duty.  For this promotion, he incurred a two-year  ADSC  from  the  date  he
entered on active duty which also expires on 23 January 1999.

Applicant  was  selected  for  duty  as  an  MC-130  Navigator.   Since  his
qualification in the aircraft was outdated, he  was  required  to  attend  a
qualification  course  to  bring  his  skills  to  current  standards.    In
accordance with AFI 36-2107, Table 1.5, Rule 10, he  incurred  a  three-year
ADSC for this qualification training, computed from the  date  he  completed
the course, 15 May 1997.  Thus, his longest ADSC expires on 14 May 1999.

Although the applicant completed the MC-130 Navigator  qualification  course
on 15 May 1997, the two-year ADSC was apparently not updated in his  records
until he requested a date of separation in August 1998.  At  this  time,  he
was advised by HQ AFPC/DPPRS  that  they  had  discovered  that  he  had  an
unfulfilled ADSC of 14 May 1999 for mission qualification  training  in  the
MC-130 aircraft; and that they had updated the missing ADSC to his record.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRR recommends that the application be denied.  It is indicated  that
applicant states that Ms. “B” informed him he would only  incur  a  two-year
ADSC for the EAD.  In speaking with Ms.  “B”,  they  learned  that  she  did
inform the applicant of the two-year ADSC for EAD,  but  she  also  informed
him he would incur an ADSC for the promotion as well as possible  additional
ADSCs for training required to fill this position.

As a recalled officer, applicant would not have completed an AF Form  63  to
acknowledge the ADSC he would incur.  Acknowledgment of ADSCs in such  cases
are accomplished on AF Form 125, Application for Extended Active  Duty  With
the United States Air Force, in accordance  with  AFI  36-2107,  Table  1.1,
Rule 4, note 2.  Applicant’s signed AF Form 125 states in block 14B, “...  I
agree to serve on EAD for a minimum of two years.  I understand that I   may
incur an additional active duty service commitment beyond  the  minimum  two
years as the result of  training  received,  permanent  change  of  station,
promotion, ...(Atch 5).  Applicant also acknowledged an  ADSC  for  training
on the Statement of Intent which states, “I understand I will incur  a  two-
year active duty service commitment (ADSC), plus  an  additional  commitment
for training.” (Atch 6).

Another source available to applicant at the  time  was  the  HQ  AFPC/DPPAW
message, dated 25 January 1996,  titled,  “Voluntary  Extended  Active  Duty
(EAD)/Recall for Navigators and Electronic Warfare Officers (Atch 7).   This
message was sent to HQ ARPC, ANGRC, HQ AFRES and was  disseminated  down  to
the Reserve  and  Guard  units  to  inform  the  officers  of  the  program.
Although they cannot prove applicant actually saw  this  message,  they  can
reasonably assume it was available for his review within his  Reserve  unit.
In paragraph 2 of that message DPPAES clearly stated, “Officers  will  incur
a 2-year ADSC for EAD.  Weapon system training ADSCs will vary from 3  years
for requalification training to 5 years for initial  qualification.   Weapon
system training ADSCs may be served concurrently with the 2-year ADSC “

Even if applicant were not aware of the AFPC/DPPAES message, his  unit  also
received the 4 January 1996, HQ USAF DPX  message  announcing  the  program.
This message would have also been  available  for  applicant’s  review.   It
clearly stated in paragraph 3H, “The ADSC for selectees ordered  to  EAD  is
waived to two years plus any applicable  ADSC  incurred  under  AFI  36-2107
(Atch 1).

One last source they have been able to  find  which  advised  applicants  of
additional  commitments  was  the  Voluntary  Reserve  Officer  EAD  Program
Information Sheet (Atch 8) provided by  AFPC/DPPAES  to  the  officers  once
they applied for EAD.  In that information sheet, it also clearly stated  in
paragraph 1.e.,  “Active  Duty  Service  Commitment  (ADSC):   Each  officer
accepting EAD will receive an initial ADSC of two  years.   This  commitment
must be served before the officer is eligible for  voluntary  separation  or
retirement.   Additional  ADSCs  may  be  incurred  for  training  or  other
personnel actions.”  A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPRR advisory  opinion  is
included as Exhibit C with Attachments 1 through 9.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reiterates the conversation he allegedly  had  with  the  military
personnel staffing technician at AFPC and states  that  the  only  thing  he
received from the Air Force was a Statement  of  Intent  and  AF  Form  125.
These forms did not mention a specific ADSC and only said member  may  incur
an additional ADSC for training.  He signed these forms only  after  talking
to the military personnel staffing technician and found  out  his  ADSC  was
January 1999.  He doesn’t agree with the assumption of  the  author  of  the
advisory opinion that he had access to all these regulations listed  in  the
advisory.  As you know,  there  are  probably  over  one  million  pages  of
regulations in the Air Force. He thinks you’ll agree with him when  he  says
it’s difficult to know even a few regulations well much  less  singling  out
certain paragraphs in regulations that  a  few  people  are  familiar  with.
Also, he recently found out that the MC-130E  is  not  listed  as  a  formal
training school in the  regulations.   He  trusted  the  military  personnel
staffing technician when he came back on active duty when she told  him  his
ADSC ran to 23 January 1999.  It  was  confirmed  when  he  in-processed  at
Hurlburt.  He did not feel a need at that time to question  his  ADSC  since
it  was  entered  correctly  as  23  January  1999.   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.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of a probable error or an injustice  warranting  favorable  action
on the applicant’s request.  Applicant contends that when he  came  back  on
active duty on 24 January 1997, he spoke with a military personnel  staffing
technician assigned to his in-processing at AFPC; and that, before  he  made
any commitment, he was told by this individual that he only owed a  two-year
ADSC which ran to 23 January 1999, is duly noted.  However, we do  not  find
his uncorroborated assertion, in and by itself, sufficiently  persuasive  to
override the rationale provided by HQ AFPC/DPPRR.  Therefore, we agree  with
the recommendation from that office and adopt its  rationale  as  the  basis
for our decision that the applicant has failed  to  sustain  his  burden  of
establishing that  he  has  been  the  victim  of  either  an  error  or  an
injustice.  It is indeed regrettable that the three-year  ADSC  he  incurred
as a result of his requalification as a MC-130 Navigator  was  not  promptly
established in his records and that the error  was  not  detected  until  he
applied for  a  date  of  separation.   Nonetheless,  given  the  number  of
instances whereby he was clearly put  on  notice  that  he  could  incur  an
additional service commitment beyond his original two-year  EAD  ADSC  as  a
result of, among other things, training received, we are not convinced  that
he unwittingly incurred  the  three-year  MC-130  Navigator  requalification
training ADSC at the time.

_________________________________________________________________

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 15 January 1999, under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

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

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 17 Sep 98, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRR, dated 4 Dec 98, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated. 21 Dec 98.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 17 Dec 98.




                                   BENEDICT A. KAUSAL, IV
                                   Panel Chair