RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  99-00292
            INDEX NUMBER:  113.04
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Active Duty Service Commitment  (ADSC)  of  10  April  2002  be
deleted from his personnel records.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was verbally counseled by AFPC and the commander of the ---  ALS
and his outgoing MPF at Ramstein AB that he would not incur an ADSC
beyond 25 October 2000 for training in the C-141; that the AF  Form
63 from McGuire AFB was not properly accomplished; that he received
improper and inaccurate counseling on his options; and that, had he
received the proper counseling, he would not have accepted the ADSC
but would have established a date of separation of 25 October 2000.

He states, in part, that in 1993, when Operational Support Aircraft
(OSA) was reorganized, Air Force policy was such that if you  still
had more than 12 months of retainability officers were not  allowed
to exercise the 7-day option to establish a DOS in lieu of training
or a PCS, even if these actions extended you  beyond  your  current
ADSC (you could be forced to PCS or accept training).  It was  also
Air Force policy to offer the bonus when your UPT ADSC expired  and
if you declined the bonus you were immediately  grounded  for  your
remaining time in the Air Force.  This directly  affected  all  the
OSA pilots who were forced to spend more than three  years  in  OSA
because of the 1993 realignment, of which  he  was  included.   His
year group had an eight-year UPT ADSC.  This would roughly coincide
with a three-year OSA commitment and a  five-year  MWS  commitment.
Any extra time  involuntarily  spent  in  OSA  meant  that  if  you
declined the pilot bonus you were automatically  grounded  for  the
extra time spent in OSA and there was absolutely nothing you  could
do about it.  You simply happened to have the bad luck to be in  an
OSA squadron that was slated to  be  closed.   This  situation  was
pointed out and he was verbally promised by both his commander  and
by AFPC that he would not have to extend beyond his UPT  ADSC  just
because his OSA unit was closed.  He trusted in  this  promise  and
when he received his outgoing PCS briefing from the Ramstein MPF he
was counseled that he would receive  a  three-year  commitment  for
training in the C-141.  Since this would not extend him beyond  his
UPT ADSC of 25 October 2000 he was willing to accept the assignment
as is indicated by his signature on the counseling sheet.

Applicant’s complete  statement  is  included  as  Exhibit  A  with
Attachments 1 through 7.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 25 September 1996, the applicant was counseled in writing by his
commander that he would receive a three-year ADSC for completion of
Initial Qualification Training (IQT) in the C-141.  However,  prior
to his entry into the training, he signed an AF  Form  63,  OFFICER
ACTIVE DUTY SERVICE  COMMITMENT  (ADSC)  COUNSELING  STATEMENT,  on
9 January 1997 acknowledging that he would  incur  an  ADSC  of  60
months upon course completion.  Applicant completed the  C-141  IQT
on 11 April 1997 and incurred a five-year ADSC of 10 April 2002.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS  recommends  that  the  application  be  denied.   It
indicates the applicant signed an AF Form 63 incurring a  five-year
ADSC for C-141 IQT on 9 January 1997.  By signing the AF  Form  63,
the applicant acknowledged his understanding of the ADSC.  Officers
who do not desire to accept the ADSC associated with  training  are
required to separate from the Air Force in lieu of proceeding  with
the training.  Officers who accept such  training  and  assignments
accept the associated ADSC.

He claims that he was verbally counseled by AFPC and  his  squadron
commander that he would not receive an ADSC past  25  October  2000
(his ADSC for UPT).  First, AFPC cannot waive an officer’s ADSC for
Major  Weapons  Systems  (MWS)  training.   To   substantiate   the
applicant’s claim, they  contacted  HQ  AFPC/DPAOM,  Rated  Officer
Assignments. They stated that  they  cannot,  nor  have  they  ever
waived an officer’s ADSC for MWS training.  As additional  support,
the applicant’s AFPC assignment worksheet (which  is  used  by  the
applicant’s assignment officer), clearly shows to compute  an  ADSC
for training based upon Table  1.5,  Rule  1  (five  years).   This
proves the applicant’s assignment officer was aware  of  the  five-
year ADSC and lends little credence to the applicant’s claim  of  a
promised shorter ADSC.

The applicant also provides  a  letter  from  his  former  squadron
commander as proof of the promise not to extend him  past  his  UPT
commitment.  However, the letter does not address the  ADSC  issues
or the applicant’s circumstances specifically.  Rather, the  letter
addresses general reasons as to why this applicant and  other  C-21
pilots were delayed into  entering  their  MWS.   According  to  HQ
AFPC/DPAOM, there is no minimum/maximum tour length in OSA such  as
the C-21; however, pilots routinely  spend  three  years  in  these
aircraft.

In addition to the claim of a shorter ADSC, the applicant claims he
was miscounseled by the MPF.   Specifically,  the  applicant’s  MPF
prepared his assignment notification Report  on  Individual  Person
(RIP) showing 36 months training.  Unfortunately, the MPF  prepared
the assignment notification RIP with the wrong length  of  training
on  the  assignment  notification  RIP.   However,  the  assignment
notification RIP does not establish the  ADSC,  completion  of  the
training does.  Despite this, the applicant signed an  AF  Form  63
showing the correct five-year ADSC.

The applicant states he was unwilling to accept the training  based
upon the five-year ADSC.  Despite this, the  applicant  claims  the
MPF stated he had to accept the C-141 training because he had three
and one-half years remaining on his UPT ADSC.  Therefore, he signed
the AF Form 63 without initialing agreement or declination in Block
II.  Contrary to the  applicant’s  claim,  he  had  the  option  to
separate and he has provided no evidence to the contrary.   Despite
Block II of the AF Form  63  not  being  initialed,  the  applicant
signed the AF Form 63 reflecting the correct ADSC and thus accepted
the ADSC (Exhibit C with Attachments 1 through 4).

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant provides a lengthy response indicating among other things
that there were several pilots in his unit at  Ramstein  who  PCSed
before him and none of them received a  five-year  ADSC.   He  also
notes that his case is  similar  to  a  case  that  the  Board  has
previously approved and cites  the  docket  number  (Copy  of  case
attached).  In explaining why he  signed  a  “blank  Form  63”,  he
states that he left Ramstein AB  in  December  1996  with  a  C-141
school date of 21 January 1997.  His original C-141  training  date
was 8 January 1997, but this had been delayed  due  to  maintenance
problems with the C-141s at Altus AFB.  He spent the holidays  with
his family and his wife’s family and  then  flew  out  to  McGuire,
arriving on the evening of 8 January with the intention of  signing
into the squadron on the morning of the 9th.  As he  was  preparing
to leave his hotel room at approximately 0900 on the 9th, he got  a
telephone call from his wife telling  him  that  the  squadron  was
looking for him.  He immediately drove to the squadron and was told
that there had been a mix-up at AFPC and that  his  original  class
starting on 8 January was the one he was supposed  to  attend.   He
made some phone calls and was told that if  he  could  make  it  to
Altus AFB by the next morning that he could keep  his  class  date.
Otherwise, AFPC had no answer as to when he might be able to  begin
training.  He immediately started the process to  get  his  tickets
and his orders.  His plane was scheduled to leave at  l300  and  it
was already 1000 and he had a one-hour drive just  to  get  to  the
airport.  He got everything in order  about  1100,  but  before  he
could pick up his orders and tickets he had to sign a Form  63  for
the C-141 ADSC.  He grabbed the Form 63 and was  getting  ready  to
initial and sign the form indicating that he accepted the  36-month
ADSC when he saw that it was for 60 months instead  of  36  months.
He informed the specialist that  this  was  incorrect  due  to  his
extended OSA tour and the policy put in place  by  AFPC.   He  even
showed them the PCS counseling sheet from Ramstein, but  they  said
it was a 60-month ADSC, not 36 months.  At this point his faith  in
the Air Force was completely shaken.  His next question was  if  he
could 7-day opt, and he was told that he could not since  he  still
had three and one-half years of retainability.  As far as he  knew,
as long as he had more than 12 months of commitment left  he  could
be forced to take the assignment  and  this  is  exactly  what  the
personnel specialist confirmed.  He had no reason to doubt him, but
was still unwilling to sign  the  five-year  ADSC  because  of  the
previous promises and counseling he had  received.   His  household
goods and car were already on their way  to  McGuire  and  he  felt
trapped.  He was told the only way to get his orders  was  to  sign
the Form 63.  He asked the personnel specialist if there  were  any
way to get his travel orders and he said he could  sign  the  blank
form and contest the ADSC once he had time to research the  matter.
This is exactly what he did.  Specifically, he left block II blank,
signed the Form 63, picked up his travel orders and dashed for  the
airport.  Only after he was at Altus AFB did he learn that the  Air
Force’s  own  guidance  at  that  time  was  to  insure  that   the
appropriate blocks on the Form  63  were  initialed  otherwise  the
member was not to depart for his  training.   In  effect,  the  Air
Force is supporting his claim that a blank  Form  63  with  only  a
signature and no blocks initialed is meaningless  (Exhibit  E  with
Attachments 1 through 6).

___________________________________________________________________

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.   Applicant
contends that he was verbally counseled by AFPC and  the  commander
of the 459th ALS and his outgoing MPF at Ramstein AB that he  would
not incur an ADSC beyond 25 October 2000 for training in the C-141;
that the AF Form 63 from McGuire AFB was not properly accomplished;
that he received improper and inaccurate counseling on his options;
and that, had he received the proper counseling, he would not  have
accepted the ADSC but would have established a date  of  separation
of 25 October 2000.  In support of his contentions,  he  submits  a
copy of his Assignment Notification, signed  by  his  commander  on
25 September 1996, which cites the correct table of the  applicable
AFI showing a five-year ADSC for  the  C-141  IQT.   However,  this
documentation is clearly annotated to  show  ADSCs  of  12  and  36
months  for  his  PCS  and  training,   respectively   (Applicant’s
Attachment 3).  He also submits a copy of his signed  AF  Form  63,
dated 9 January 1997, indicating that he was aware of the 60 months
ADSC for the C-141 IQT shortly before entering the program.  He did
not indicate that he concurred with the ADSC, nor did  he  indicate
that he declined to accept the service commitment.   On  the  other
hand, the AF Form 63 is not authenticated by the MPF  and  cites  a
Rule in the applicable ADSC instruction  that  does  not  exist  in
Table l.5.  Applicant’s explanation for signing a blank AF Form  63
is that he departed Ramstein AB  in  December  1996  with  a  C-141
school date of 21 January 1997.  His  original  training  date  was
8 January 1997, but  this  had  been  delayed  due  to  maintenance
problems with the aircraft.  On the evening of 8 January  1997,  he
was told that there had  been  a  mix-up  at  AFPC;  and  that  his
original class starting on 8 January was the one he was supposed to
attend.  He was also told that if he could make it to Altus AFB  by
the next morning he could keep his class date.  Otherwise, AFPC had
no answer as to when he might be able to begin  training.   He  got
everything in order, but before he could pick  up  his  orders  and
tickets he had to sign a Form  63  for  the  C-141  ADSC.   He  was
getting ready to initial and  sign  the  form  indicating  that  he
accepted the 36-month ADSC when he saw that it was  for  60  months
instead of 36 months.  He informed the  specialist  that  this  was
incorrect due to his extended OSA tour and the policy put in  place
by AFPC.  He  even  showed  them  the  PCS  counseling  sheet  from
Ramstein, but they said it was a 60-month ADSC, not 36 months.  His
next question was if he could 7-day opt and was told that he  could
not since he still had three and one-half years  of  retainability.
His household goods and car were already on their  way  to  McGuire
and he felt trapped.  He asked the personnel  specialist  if  there
were any way to get his travel orders and he said he could sign the
blank form and contest the ADSC once he had time  to  research  the
matter.  This is exactly what he did.  Only after he was  at  Altus
AFB did he learn that the Air Force’s own guidance at that time was
to insure that the appropriate blocks on the Form 63 were initialed
otherwise the member was not to depart for his training.

4.  The Air Force recommends that the application be denied because
the applicant signed an AF Form 63 incurring the five-year ADSC for
the C-141 IQT prior to entering the training.  It is indicated that
by  signing  the  AF  Form  63,  the  applicant  acknowledged   his
understanding of the ADSC; that  officers  who  do  not  desire  to
accept the ADSC associated with training are required  to  separate
from the Air Force in lieu of proceeding  with  the  training;  and
that officers who accept such training and assignments  accept  the
associated ADSC.   Ordinarily,  we  would  agree.   In  this  case,
however, the applicant has presented persuasive  evidence  that  he
agreed to the C-141 IQT training under the assumption that he would
incur a 36-month ADSC which, with a class start date of  8  January
1997,  would  expire  prior  to  his  original  UPT  commitment  of
25 October 2000.  However, because of a mix-up in the  class  start
date by AFPC, he was forced to acknowledge a five-year ADSC on  the
eve of his class start  date  under  the  assumption  that  he  was
ineligible to exercise the 7-day option to decline the training and
establish a date  of  separation  at  the  expiration  of  his  UPT
commitment.  We recognize  that  the  applicant  has  submitted  no
corroborative evidence to support his  assertion  that  he  assumed
that he could not exercise the 7-day option policy  and  avoid  the
five-year ADSC;  and  that  his  assumption  was  reaffirmed  by  a
personnel specialist in his MPF.  Nonetheless, given the fact  that
he has documented  that  he  was  counseled  by  his  MPF  and  his
commander that the C-141 ADSC would not extend his beyond  his  UPT
ADSC and the fact that the blank AF Form 63 that he signed  on  the
eve of his class start  date  was  not  properly  filled  out,  the
benefit of any doubt should be resolved in favor of the applicant.

___________________________________________________________________

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 the C-141 Initial  Qualification  Training  (IQT)  on
11 April 1997 be declared void.

___________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this  application  in
Executive Session on 21 July 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 27 Jan 99, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 5 Mar 99, w/atchs.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 29 Mar 99.
     Exhibit E.  Letter from Applicant, dated 19 Apr 99, w/atchs.




                                   BENEDICT A. KAUSAL IV
                                   Panel Chair








AFBCMR 99-00292




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 the C-141 Initial Qualification Training (IQT) on
11 April 1997 be, and hereby is, declared void.







       JOE G. LINEBERGER

       Director

       Air Force Review Boards Agency