RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  99-00677
            INDEX CODE:  113.04

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His  Active  Duty  Service  Commitment  (ADSC)  of  28  September  2003  for
Undergraduate Flying Training (UFT) be rescinded.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

While he completed his aviation training and received his  wings,  he  never
qualified as a crew member with his first  unit  of  assignment,  at  Offutt
AFB, as an Electronic Warfare Officer due to  his  diagnosed  hypersensitive
vestibular system.  He cannot serve the Air Force in a  rated  capacity  due
to his lack of operational experience.   He  struggled  with  his  condition
throughout the training phase.  But he was internally driven by  his  desire
to earn navigator wings and he  was  allowed  to  get  shuffled  through  by
doctors at Pensacola.

He states that if the doctors would have ran a battery of tests that he  has
since undergone, he would not have been permitted to  continue  in  training
and would not have incurred the ADSC.  In an  effort  to  push  him  through
training in light of the Air Force’s shortage  of  navigators,  he  did  not
undergo any certrifuge training because the facility  was  not  functioning.
He was informed that the training was not mandatory and if  he  desired,  he
could later train with another class.   He  included  excerpts  from  flight
training records to show the frequency of symptoms (motion  sickness)  prior
to diagnosis.  He experienced symptoms on eight flights.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a copy of the  Aeronautical
Order - Terminate Aviation Service, Report  of  Medical  Examination  (RME),
Medical Documents, and Aviation Training Forms.

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular  Air  Force  on  9  August  1993  and  was
honorably discharged on 20 June 1996 in  the  grade  of  staff  sergeant  to
accept commission as a  2nd  Lieutenant  in  the  United  States  Air  Force
Reserves (USAFR).

On 16 May 1995, applicant signed an AF Form  56  (Application  for  Training
Leading to a Commission in the U.S. Air Force), acknowledging  his  ADSC  of
six years.  (TAB 1).

On 21 June 1996, the applicant was appointed a 2nd  Lieutenant,  USAFR,  and
ordered to extended active duty.

On 21 June 1998, the applicant was promoted to the grade of 1st lieutenant.

On  29  September  1999,  applicant  graduated  from  Undergraduate   Flying
Training (UFT) and incurred a six year ADSC of 28 September 2003.

On 20 January 1999, applicant was medically disqualified from flying  status
due to motion sickness.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  Chief,  Officer   Separations,   Directorate   of   Personnel   Program
Management, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, reviewed this application  and  states  that  the
ADSC program assures a reasonable return to the  Air  Force  for  the  costs
incurred in training.  ADSCs are routinely incurred for  such  common  place
events as permanent change of station, training, education,  and  promotion.
Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2107, ADSCs  and  Specified  Period  of  Time
Contracts, paragraph 1.1, dated 6 July 1994, outlines the ADSC program.

According to Air Force policy, officers receive ADSCs voluntarily;  if  they
are unwilling to accept the ADSC they elect retirement  or  separation  from
the Air Force in lieu of undergoing the  training.   Officers  are  normally
advised of  these  ADSCs  in  writing  and  their  acknowledgment  of  their
understanding and acceptance of the ADSC is normally documented  in  writing
on an AF  Form  63,  Officer  and  Airmen  Active  Duty  Service  Commitment
Acknowledgment Statement.  The onus  is  on  the  officer  to  prove  he/she
unwittingly incurred an ADSC for training he/she  would  not  have  accepted
had he/she been aware of the ADSC prior to entering the training.

The applicant claims his personal desire and the need for navigators in  the
Air Force allowed him to slip through  UFT  and  graduate,  even  though  he
experienced motion sickness  on  several  different  occasions  during  UFT.
While the applicant has provided evidence  of  his  motion  sickness  during
UFT, he was allowed to continue with his training.  They cannot  comment  on
why he was not medically disqualified during  UFT;  however,  the  applicant
was allowed to continue through UFT and graduate.

The ADSC program ensures a reasonable return for  investments  in  training.
In the applicant’s case, he completed the training, received  his  navigator
wings, and  accepted  the  ADSC  associated  with  it.   The  applicant  was
effectively utilized as a navigator over a one year  period  before  he  was
medically disqualified.  While he no longer  can  be  utilized  as  a  rated
officer by the Air Force, he can be utilized in other fields and  provide  a
return to the taxpayers for his training.  This is not an issue of  deciding
whether or not the applicant is fit for military  service  and  the  medical
disqualification does not invalidate his ADSC  for  UFT.   According  to  HQ
AFPC/DPAOM, Rated Officer Assignments, the applicant is  presently  applying
for the Funded Legal Education Program (FLEP).   If  selected  by  the  FLEP
Board, HQ AFPC/DPAOM will release him to pursue his  law  degree.   However,
HQ AFPC/DPAOM states that should the applicant not be selected for FLEP,  he
will be released for utilization in either a support or operational  support
career field to fulfill his UFT ADSC.

The applicant willingly completed UFT and accepted the associated  six  year
ADSC.  While he has been diagnosed with motion sickness and has been  pulled
from flying status, this does not invalidate the UFT  ADSC.   In  order  for
the Air Force to receive a  return  on  the  investment  for  training,  the
applicant will be utilized effectively in  another  capacity  not  requiring
flying duties.  Therefore, they recommend denial of applicant’s request.

However, if the Board grants the relief sought, his 28 September  2003  ADSC
for UFT will be rescinded thus establishing his longest ADSC as 21  November
2000 for tuition assistance.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation, with attachments,  is  attached
at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the evaluation and states that  it  took  him  double
the amount of time most students require to  complete  training.   This  was
due to medical problems.  Much like his experience in UFT, his training  was
stilted due to struggles with motion sickness.  With the  mass  of  students
that were being put through training and the desire to  retain  as  many  of
those students as possible in light of the shortage of  navigators  and  the
concurrent problems with the new joint training program, he did not  receive
the standard of care that he has  since  being  at  Offutt  AFB.   When  the
process of his disqualification started, he was told  by  medical  personnel
that he should never have been allowed  to  complete  his  flying  training.
Absent accurate information regarding his physical health  and  the  ability
to perform the job for which he was receiving training, he  could  not  have
made  an  informed  decision  regarding  his  training  or   any   resulting
commitment.

Applicant’s complete response, with attachment, is attached at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant, SAF/PC, reviewed this  application  and  states
that applicant completed navigator training with eight documented  incidents
of airsickness, full (vomiting) and partial (queasiness),  between  November
1996 and May 1997.  He supplies copies of medical reports  of  three  visits
to  the  flight  surgeons  who  handled  the  situation  appropriately  with
counseling and suggested methods for overcoming this problem.  They  do  not
have evidence that any extended work-up was indicated  or  performed  during
this UPT  period.   By  his  own  admission,  the  applicant  persevered  in
reaching his goal of completion of training and was  subsequently  graduated
and sent to his duty assignment at Offutt AFB.  There  he  was  placed  Duty
Not Involving Flying (DNIF) and eventually disqualified from further  flying
effective  20  January  1999  for  continued  problems   with   airsickness.
Investigation has resulted in a diagnosis of hyperactive  vestibular  (inner
ear) system in lieu of finding any other  demonstrable  organic  reason  for
his difficulties.

Evidence of records shows that the applicant’s airsickness,  which  occurred
in approximately 25% of his flights in UPT, was appropriately  addressed  by
the NAS Flight Surgeons who evaluated him.   His  problem,  while  being  of
some concern, was not felt severe enough to  warrant  elimination  from  the
training program, and allowing him to continue to graduation and  acceptance
of an ADSC was not  contrary  to  acceptable  standards.   He  was  able  to
fulfill 9 months of navigator duty before being placed  DNIF  in  June  1998
prior to his recommended disqualification in October 1998.

Had the applicant been eliminated from UPT for a medical problem,  he  would
have incurred a two year ADSC the day he was placed  DNIF  at  his  training
site or at his RNLTD to his duty assignment IAQ AFI 36-2107, Table 1.8.   It
is clear from the records submitted that  he  was  not  considered  for  UPT
elimination, and his resulting ADSC is, therefore, valid and should  not  be
waived.  No error was committed in allowing the applicant to  complete  UPT,
and his resulting ADSC should be completed unless he is released  by  proper
authority  for  other  reasons.   Therefore,  they   recommend   denial   of
applicant’s request.



A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  applicant  reviewed  the  evaluation  and  states  that   after   three
airsickness  evaluations  an  individual  was  placed  in  the   airsickness
desensitization program, which was considered to take too  long  and  should
be avoided if at  all  possible.   He  was  encouraged  not  to  enter  that
program.  He was instructed by Navy personnel that he should see them if  he
had additional episodes but desired to continue in training.  He did, on  at
least three occasions that are not documented in his  medical  records.   As
stated in the advisory, “We do not have evidence that any  extended  work-up
was indicated or performed during this UPT period.”   The  absence  of  this
work-up is why he was not considered for UPT elimination.

His last flight in Undergraduate Navigator Training  (UNT)  was  on  4  June
1997.  He did not fly again until 7 April 1998.  His last flight as  a  crew
member was on 22 June 1998.  The  advisory  asserts  that  he  was  able  to
fulfill nine months of navigator  duty.   The  nine-month  period  that  was
referred to was from 27 September 1997 to 22 June 1998, included a  two  and
one-half months of flying and eight flights.  Nine months of navigator  duty
is hardly representative of the resistance training, academic training,  and
extra duties he performed in the interim.

He currently has an ADSC for tuition assistance that extends to  the  spring
of 2001.  Next year he will be eligible for  promotion  to  captain  and  he
plans to accept the one year ADSC associated with that.  This will move  his
second longest ADSC to 21 June 2001.  The Air  Force  would  receive  nearly
four years of duty from the date of his graduation from UNT.   He  considers
this a reasonable return for the costs incurred  through  training  that  he
cannot use in or out of the Air Force.  AFPC has already determined that  he
is not employable as an Electronic Warfare Officer (EWO) and  will  have  to
be retrained.

Applicant’s complete response is attached at Exhibit H.

_________________________________________________________

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.   We  took  notice   of   the
applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case;  however,
we agree with the opinion and recommendation of  the  Air  Force  and  adopt
their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant  has  not
been the victim of an error or injustice.  While the applicant had  problems
during his UPT training, he was allowed to continue.   Since  the  applicant
completed UPT, we believe that the ASDC he incurred  is  valid.   Therefore,
in the absence of 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 14 September 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                  Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Walter J. Hosey, Member
                  Mr. Patrick R. Wheeler, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 9 Mar 99, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 21 Apr 99, w/atchs.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 10 May 1999.
   Exhibit E.  Applicant’s Response, dated 27 May 99, w/atchs.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/PC, dated 19 May 99.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 21 May 99.
   Exhibit H.  Applicant’s Response, dated 5 Aug 99, w/atch.




                                THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                Panel Chair