RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  99-00922
            INDEX NUMBER:  113.04
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His  Active  Duty  Service  Commitment  (ADSC)  be   changed   from
30 September 2000 to 8 September 2000.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

While enrolled in T-1A Pilot Instructor Training  (PIT),  the  99th
Fighter Training Squadron experienced a maintenance  “shutdown”  of
approximately three weeks due to a lack  of  qualified  maintenance
personnel; and that, since this was an Air Force maintenance  issue
and not anything he contributed to, he should not have to incur the
extra 22 days past his planned graduation date.

Applicant states, in part, that Major “S” from  AFMPC  assured  him
that his ADSC would  reflect  his  planned  graduation  date  of  8
September 1997.  He also discussed this situation with his squadron
commander and she agrees a change in his ADSC  is  warranted.  This
ADSC adjustment has already been granted for another  Laughlin  T-1
PIT who experienced the same delay as his class.

Applicant’s complete statement is included as Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant completed T-1 PIT on 1 October 1997 and incurred a three-
year ADSC of 30 September 2000.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommends that  the  application  be  denied.   That
office states, in part, that the crux of the  applicant’s  argument
surrounds his  “planned”  graduation  date.   AFI  36-2107  clearly
states an ADSC is  incurred  when  training  is  complete.   Often,
unforeseen  problems  arise  which  prevent  courses   from   being
completed on a “planned” date and the system is  designed  to  have
flexibility for such events as  weather  or  maintenance  problems.
Had the applicant completed training 22 days early, his ADSC  would
have reflected his actual graduation date  and  not  the  “planned”
date.  The applicant signed an AF Form 63 on 18  March  1997  which
shows he willingly accepted a three-year ADSC  for  T-1  PIT  “upon
completion of training (Atch 3).”  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 there are  several  errors  in  the
advisory opinion that must be addressed.  First, his  current  ADSC
is based on  his  last  T-1  flight  at  Randolph  PIT,  which  was
30 September 1997.  The advisory opinion stated that  he  completed
training on 1 October 1997.  Second, there is  an  officer  in  his
squadron who was delayed approximately 30  days  due  to  the  same
maintenance problems at Randolph PIT and, without request, had  his
ADSC reflect his earlier planned  graduation  date.   The  advisory
opinion author assumes  incorrectly  in  his  letter  that  he  was
referring to Captain “S”, his T-1 classmate.   He  made  no  effort
whatsoever to contact him at Laughlin  AFB  to  clarify  any  facts
about  the  other  T-1  Instructor  or  his  formal  ADSC  request.
Instead, he  incorrectly  assumes  he’s  making  reference  to  the
Captain “S.”  Third, the advisory  opinion  author  did  happen  to
contact Major “S” at HQ AFPC to question him if he  ever  spoke  to
him about changing his ADSC.  Major “S” responded that  “he  denies
ever speaking to me.”  Captain “S”  personally  introduced  him  to
Major “S” while at Randolph AFB when they visited him in his office
to discuss their situation.  Major “S” appeared to be  a  busy  man
and he would easily understand it if he never recalled meeting him.
 It was then when Major “S” allowed them to read an e-mail  from  a
civilian at AFPC who was responsible for personnel management.  The
e-mail stated that since the T-1 maintenance problem was beyond the
Air Force’s  control,  T-1  PIT  student’s  ADSC  paperwork  should
reflect the earlier of scheduled or actual course  completion.   He
was told this e-mail was  forwarded  to  SSgt  “S”  (AFPC)  and  Lt
Colonel “B” (99FTS/CC).

He finds reason to question his ADSC counseling that he  signed  on
18 March 1997.  To begin with, he voluntarily agreed  to  incur  an
ADSC of  36  months  upon  completion  of  training  based  on  his
projected date of 8 September 1997.  He would never sign any  open-
ended Air Force contract that did not include a planned  graduation
date.  He also does not recall SRA R” counseling  him  that  if  he
were delayed due  to  reasons  beyond  his  control,  in  his  case
maintenance problems, that he would still have to serve   his  full
36 months.  He believes this ADSC  policy  is  flawed  in  that  it
cannot be all encompassing for every situation possible in  today’s
Air Force.  If he were delayed four or even seven months, would  he
still have to serve his full 36  months  for  an  AETC  assignment?
Since he’s still an  AMC  asset,  would  AMC  allow  him  to  waste
valuable time in training command when he should be back flying his
assigned MWS?  He also was not offered counseling on the option  of
returning to  his  MWS  should  the  Randolph  maintenance  problem
continue indefinitely.

In conclusion, applicant states that he volunteered  to  extend  on
active duty beyond his original UPT training date  when  he  signed
the AF Form 63 on 18 March 1997.  The contract he  signed  projects
his ADSC to only one particular date, 8 September  2000.   It  does
not state anywhere that if he is delayed due to reasons out of  his
control he cannot be fairly granted an ADSC change reflecting  what
he originally signed.  According to the advisory  opinion  author’s
letter, “FACTS: a.  The ADSC program assures a reasonable return to
the Air Force for the costs incurred in training.”  He believes the
Air Force will receive this  “reasonable  return”  long  before  he
should incur the additional 22-day extension.  Finally, since  this
ADSC change has already been performed for another Laughlin AFB T-1
instructor, why is he not offered the  same  opportunity?  (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.
Applicant’s contentions that while enrolled in T-1A PIT,  the  99th
Fighter Training Squadron experienced a maintenance  “shutdown”  of
approximately three weeks due to a lack  of  qualified  maintenance
personnel; and that, since this was an Air Force maintenance  issue
and not anything he contributed to, he should not have to incur the
extra 22 days past his planned  graduation  date  are  duly  noted.
However, we do not find these assertions,  in  and  by  themselves,
sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided  by  the
Air Force.  Therefore, we agree with the recommendation of the  Air
Force and adopt the  rationale  expressed  as  the  basis  for  our
conclusion that the applicant has not been a victim of an error  or
an injustice to the  extent  warranting  favorable  action  on  his
request.
___________________________________________________________________

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 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

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 7 Apr 99.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 26 May 99, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 21 Jun 99.
    Exhibit E.  Letter from Applicant, dated 25 Jun 99.




                                   BENEDICT A. KAUSAL IV
                                   Panel Chair