RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-02847

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) be changed  to  5  August
1999, rather than 5 August 2000.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC) added a  training  commitment
that he was not counseled about and did not agree to;  that  it  is
unfair for this commitment to be added almost one  year  after  the
training was completed; that he was counseled that  the  commitment
would only be two years since he was a prior T-38 instructor  pilot
(IP); and that he was not asked to sign for a three-year commitment
on an AF Form 63 (ADSC Counseling Statement) as required.

Applicant’s complete 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 T-38 Pilot  Instructor  Training  on  6  August
1997.  In accordance with AFI 36-2107, dated 6 Jul 94,  Table  l.5,
Rule 7 (Atch 1),  the  applicant  incurred  a  three-year  ADSC  of
5 August 2000.

Applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD)  is
1 July 1980, which renders  him  eligible  for  length  of  service
retirement on 1 August 2000.  However, if he is obligated to  serve
the three-year T-38 Pilot Instructor Training  ADSC,  he  will  not
become retirement eligible until 1 September 2000.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Notwithstanding the absence of  an  AF  Form  63  (ADSC  Counseling
Statement),  HQ  AFPC/DPPRR  recommends  that  the  application  be
denied.  They  indicate,  in  part,  that  they  believe  there  is
sufficient evidence to indicate the applicant was notified  of  his
ADSC via the training allocation RIP; and again, via his assignment
notification  RIP;  and  again  via  the  assignment  message   and
subsequent CRT gram, which also  provided  ADSC  information.   The
presumption of the applicant’s foreknowledge of the  ADSC  and  his
completion of training rather than opting for separation  from  the
Air Force constitute his tacit acceptance of the ADSC, and overcome
the absence of formal documentation of his acceptance of the ADSC.

It is also believed that the awareness of the association of  ADSCs
with flying training is commonplace within  the  flying  community.
Given the applicant’s extensive  history  of  incurring  ADSCs  for
flying training,  it  is  reasonable  to  assume  that  the  member
volunteered for and accepted the training fully aware that he would
receive a three-year ADSC.

Lastly, HQ AFPC/DPPRR states that applicant did  not  categorically
deny any knowledge of an ADSC associated with his  training.   They
do not perceive that he has suffered any injustice  or  harm  as  a
result of serving his legitimate commitment.  Moreover,  given  the
Air Force’s critical need for experienced pilots, it  is  of  vital
importance to the Air Force mission to retain his services for  the
full tenure of his commitment.  A complete  copy  of  the  advisory
opinion is at Exhibit C with Attachments 1 through 5.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states, in part, that the justification for  approval  of
his request is that numerous facts led  him  to  believe  the  ADSC
would  be  two  years  and  no  counseling/documentation  was  done
according to current directives.  The only counseling  he  received
concerning the ADSC for T-38 PIT was from his  squadron  commander.
This officer followed the guidance in the  assignment  notification
(Atch 1) and called him in for  counseling.   He  stated  that  the
notification showed only an ADSC of two years for the move but that
none was listed for the  training.   He  further  stated  that  the
training ADSC was most likely two years as  well  since  it  wasn’t
listed on the notification and  because  F-15  instructor  training
(his current job) was a two-year  ADSC.   Additionally,  he  stated
that it didn’t really matter since he was staying  in  for  a  full
career.  He agreed and never discussed ADSC information again  with
him or anyone at the MPF or AFPC.  This  counseling  was  the  main
reason for his misunderstanding of the real ADSC.  But  there  were
several other reasons.

He accepted and served a two-year ADSC  for  completing  the  exact
same T-38 PIT course in Apr 87.  He accepted and served a  two-year
ADSC for T-38 Lead-in Fighter Training and a two-year ADSC for F-15
instructor training.  Three of his five ADSCs  previously  incurred
for flying training were for two years.  The previous ADSCs and the
counseling from his squadron commander led him to believe the  T-38
ADSC would be two years again.  Absolutely nothing was done by  the
MPF to provide the required counseling and documentation.  He never
had any question about whether there was an ADSC for the  training,
he simply didn’t  know  the  actual  duration.   According  to  the
guidance at the time, AFI 36-2107 (6 Jul 94), the  MPF  section  is
required to complete the counseling and document the process on  an
AF Form 63.  This guidance is provided at attachment 2.

The AFPC/DPPRR memorandum  to  the  Board  concerning  his  request
states the reasons he should have known  what  the  ADSC  was.   In
reality, the memorandum clearly shows what should have  been  done,
but was not.  Yes, documentation is the ironclad proof that correct
guidance was followed, leaving no question as to the commitment and
agreement of an ADSC.  He has provided the only documentation  that
exists in his case concerning an ADSC.   The AFPC memorandum states
that “the instruction recognizes that documentation is  not  always
accomplished, and yet still directs the update of an  ADSC”.   This
statement is basically false since it is  taken  from  the  current
version of AFI 36-2107, dated 1 Sep 98 (Atch 3).   AFPC  cites  AFI
guidance from a version of the regulation that  was  not  in  force
until September 1998.  The applicable version in his  case  is  the
instruction dated 6 Jul 94 (Atch 2).   This  guidance  states  that
counseling will be done by the MPF and it will be documented on  AF
Form 63.  The AFPC policy of updating an  ADSC  regardless  of  the
counseling was implemented in mid 1998 when the “Draft” copy of AFI
36-2107 was written.  This guidance should not be  applied  in  his
case.  The AFPC memo also misstates the ADSC he incurred  for  F-15
Initial Qualification.  The ADSC was for five years (see attachment
4), not three years as stated in their  memo.   He  completed  that
training in Mar 91.

The AFPC/DPPRR memorandum lists the documents that can  and  should
be used to prepare  a  member  to  move  or  for  training.   These
documents provided no guidance in his case since they  were  either
not used or not made available  to  him.   First,  the  applicant’s
assignment  worksheet  is  listed.   This  is  an  AFPC  assignment
officer’s worksheet and is not given  to  or  used  by  the  member
getting trained.  There is no way this document helps  the  member,
he’s never seen the document before.  Second on  the  list  is  the
Report on Individual Person (RIP) that should have  been  generated
and given to the member.  This RIP, if it existed, was never  given
to him.  He used the assignment information he was given in the MPF
notification at attachment 1.  Additionally, the  AFPC  memo  lists
two other documents that were sent to the MPF to  ensure  that  the
correct guidance was followed, an  electronic  message  and  a  CRT
Gram.   These  should  have  helped  the  MPF  in  completing   all
requirements  concerning   ADSC   counseling   and   the   required
documentation, but did not.  Again, these are AFPC messages sent to
the MPF and are not given to or used in any way by the member.  How
could they possibly show that he knew the duration of any ADSC  for
training?  AFPC also references a sample RIP that was generated  by
training management.  This RIP would have  shown  him  the  correct
ADSC if it had been used.  Finally, the document that should be the
ironclad proof that correct guidance was properly followed  is  the
AF Form 63.  There is no AF Form 63 to document the T-38  PIT  ADSC
in this case because there was no counseling to  document.   Copies
of previous AF Forms 63 are in his permanent records as directed by
AFI 36-2107.

His ADSC was not updated to add the three-year commitment until mid
1998, almost a full year after  the  training  was  complete.   The
delay was not due to the T-38 school’s  failure  to  report  course
completion as proposed by AFPC.  The update to his ADSC came  after
AFPC began a “re-verification of ADSC” tasking in June 1998.   This
tasking allowed usage of guidance in the “Draft version of AFR  36-
2107  that  was  eventually  dated  1  September  1998.   Lack   of
compliance with current directives should not be deflected to other
organizations.  A complete copy  of  applicant’s  response  to  the
advisory opinion is  included  as  Exhibit  E  with  Attachments  1
through 4.

___________________________________________________________________

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  a  probable  error  or  an  injustice  warranting
favorable action on the applicant’s  request.   Applicant  contends
that the AFPC added a training commitment that he was not counseled
about and did not agree to; that it is unfair for  this  commitment
to be added almost one year after the training was completed;  that
he was counseled that the commitment would only be two years  since
he was a prior T-38 instructor pilot; and that he was not asked  to
sign for a three-year commitment on an AF Form 63 (ADSC  Counseling
Statement) as required.  Notwithstanding the absence of an AF  Form
63, AFPC/DPPRR recommends that the  application  be  denied.   That
office indicates that they believe there is sufficient evidence  to
indicate the applicant was notified of his ADSC  via  the  training
allocation RIP; and again, via his assignment notification RIP; and
again via the assignment message and  subsequent  CRT  gram,  which
also provided ADSC information.  It is believed the presumption  of
the applicant’s foreknowledge of the ADSC  and  his  completion  of
training rather than opting  for  separation  from  the  Air  Force
constitute his tacit  acceptance  of  the  ADSC  and  overcome  the
absence of formal documentation of his acceptance of the ADSC.   We
do not agree.

4.  Since the applicant was selected for the T-38 Instructor  Pilot
Training prior to his completion of 20 years of service, we realize
that an argument could  be  made  that  even  had  he  been  timely
apprised of the three-year ADSC, since his only alternative at that
time appears to have been to elect discharge  short  of  retirement
eligibility, he most likely would have accepted the  training  with
the associated  three-year  ADSC.   However,  AFPC/DPPRR  can  only
speculate that the applicant was made aware of the three-year  ADSC
during the assignment  processing  and  given  the  opportunity  to
voluntarily accept the  training  with  the  associated  three-year
ADSC.  The applicant, on  the  other  hand,  submits  corroborative
evidence  in  the  form  of  his  Notification  of  Selection   for
Reassignment clearly showing that  his  commander  was  advised  to
counsel him of a two-year ADSC for the CONUS TO  CONUS  assignment.
There  is  no  mention  made  of  an  ADSC  for  training  in  this
notification.  In consideration of all the  circumstances  of  this
case, including the fact that the involuntary extension  adds  only
two  months  to  the  applicant’s  retirement  eligibility  and  in
recognition of his many years of faithful service to the Air Force,
to hold him beyond  his  minimum  retirement  eligibility  date  is
unduly harsh and, therefore, unjust.

___________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the  Air  Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that he incurred a two-
year Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) of 5 August  1999  as  a
result of his completion  of  T-38  Pilot  Instructor  Training  on
6 August 1997.

___________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this  application  in
Executive Session on 13 April 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 7 Oct 98, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRR, dated 1 Feb 99, w/atchs.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 22 Feb 99.
     Exhibit E.  Letter from Applicant, dated 1 Mar 99, w/atchs.




                                   BENEDICT A. KAUSAL IV
                                   Panel Chair








AFBCMR 98-02847




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   , be corrected to show that he incurred a two-
year Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) of 5 August 1999 as a
result of his completion of T-38 Pilot Instructor Training on
6 August 1997.







       JOE G. LINEBERGER

       Director

       Air Force Review Boards Agency