RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  99--1407
            INDEX NUMBER:  113.04
            COUNSEL: GUY J. FERRANTE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO
___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Correct Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) for attending  United
States Air Force Weapons School  (USAFWS)  from  15  June  2002  to
13 June 1999.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Prior to attending the USAFWS, he was counseled via an AF  Form  63
that he would receive  a  two-year  commitment  for  attending  the
course; that after attending the course, he was again counseled via
an AF Form 63 that he had received a two-year  ADSC  for  attending
the USAFWS; and that 18 months after completion of training at  the
USAFWS, his commitment was increased three years and two days  when
his ADSC was changed to 15 June 2002.

Applicant’s  complete  statement  and  the   documentary   evidence
submitted in support of his application are included as  Exhibit  A
with Attachments 1 through 5.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant completed the USAFWS on  16  June  1997.   Therefore,  in
accordance with Table 1.5, Rule 4, AFI 36-2107, he incurred a five-
year ADSC of 15  June  2002.   Prior  to  attending  the  training,
however, he signed an AF Form 63  (Officer/Airman  ADSC  Counseling
Statement), indicating he would incur only a two-year ADSC for  the
training.  In addition, the Air Force  Training  Management  System
(AFTMS) assigned an erroneous  24-months  ADSC  for  the  training.
Finally, upon completing the training he was presented a signed  AF
Form 63 advising  him  that  his  USAFWS  ADSC  was  13  June  1999
(approximately two years from completion of the training).

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPR  recommends  that  the  application  be  denied.   It  is
indicated, in part, that although the applicant states he should be
given an ADSC according to the AF Form 63 he signed,  they  believe
he was fully aware of the five-year ADSC and is capitalizing on the
MPF’s miscounseling to reduce his obligation.  In fact, they  would
be surprised if the applicant could categorically deny, in writing,
any knowledge of  the  five-year  ADSC,  prior  to  or  during  his
training.

They concede that AFTMS contained an erroneous  two-year  ADSC  and
that the applicant was formally miscounseled by his  MPF;  however,
although an airman in the MPF made an error on the AF Form  63,  it
would be a greater wrong to remove an ADSC that  they  believe  was
willingly and knowingly  incurred.   Their  discussions  with  AFPC
rated assignment functionals and the USAF Weapons Registrar confirm
that the rated community was well aware of the five-year ADSC along
with the system “loophole” to get around it.

Specifically, this “loophole” refers to the erroneous two-year ADSC
assigned in AFTMS when the applicant  was  selected  for  training.
MPFs rely  heavily  on  AFTMS  to  complete  the  AF  Form  63  and
unfortunately used the erroneous ADSC length  when  counseling  the
applicant.  However, AFTMS is not a “stand alone” source  for  ADSC
counseling.  A careful review  of  the  tables  and  rules  in  the
governing AFI would have revealed  any  discrepancies  and  pointed
towards the correct ADSC for  the  training.   Moreover,  the  USAF
Weapons School Registrar who has been at  the  location  for  eight
years stated she verbally advised the officers upon  their  arrival
of the five-year ADSC.  When you consider the  fact  that  officers
can receive a two-year ADSC for eliminating or withdrawing from the
same type of training the applicant completed, reducing  his  five-
year obligation to two years creates an  imbalance  and  sends  the
wrong message about the incurrence of ADSCs.

Finally, the applicant did not state he  would  have  declined  the
training and 7-day opted for separation had he known of  the  five-
year ADSC.  Therefore, they cannot establish any measure of harm in
requiring him to fulfill his obligation (Exhibit C with Attachments
1 through 5.).

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant categorically  denies  any  knowledge  that  the  weapons
school course he attended carried a five-year ADSC.  He expected  a
two-year commitment, was counseled that he would receive a two-year
commitment and received a two-year  commitment.   He  also  advises
that he can say without a doubt, based on the  way  he  feels  now,
that he would never have attended WIC if it were a five-year  ADSC.
He adds, however, that it seems ludicrous to ask  him  to  consider
what he would have done three years ago had he been presented  with
that  option.   Applicant’s  complete  statement   and   additional
documentary evidence submitted in support of  his  application  are
included as Exhibit G with Attachments 1 and 2.

Counsel states, in part, that applicant signed two AF  Form  63s  -
before and after attending Fighter Weapons School (FWS).   Both  of
those AF Forms 63 reflect  applicant’s  acknowledgement  of  formal
counseling by MPF personnel professionals that he incurred  a  two-
year ADSC by attending FWS.   Notwithstanding  this  documentation,
the authenticity of which is not questioned,  the  advisory  writer
claims that applicant incurred a five-year ADSC:  (1)  because  “we
believe  he  was  fully  aware  of  the  five-year  ADSC   and   is
capitalizing on the MPF’s miscounseling to reduce his  obligation,”
(2) because the AF Form 63s cite the wrong rule in AFI 36-2107, and
(3) because the applicant did not “categorically deny, in  writing,
any knowledge of  the  five-year  ADSC,  prior  to  or  during  his
training” or state that he would have  declined  the  training  and
separated if he had known of the five-year ADSC.

The advisory writer relies on two  documents  to  malign  a  fellow
officer’s honor and integrity.  One is a  photocopy  of  an  e-mail
message purportedly sent from a Captain Tom “S” to Major  Paula  A.
“G.”  The other is an unsigned, unsworn “To Whom  It  may  Concern”
document, apparently from an Annie “T.”

Captain “A” represents that  “it  was  common  knowledge  by  F-15E
aircrew that ADSCs were being loaded  incorrectly  with  regard  to
FWS.  While working in the 494th weapon  shop  from  November  1995
till Jul 97 there were several conversations regarding the awarding
of incorrect ADSCs with regard to FWS.  When new  Weapons  Officers
showed up it was standard to ask if they got two years or if the AF
had fixed the loophole.”  Without any evidence  that  this  officer
even knew applicant, much less that applicant had ever made such  a
comment or asked such a  question,  the  advisory  writer  takes  a
quantum leap all the way to the conclusion that applicant was “well
aware” of a five-year ADSC.  If  an  ADSC  “loophole”  was  “common
knowledge by F-15E aircrew,” applicant must have been out of  touch
because, as he will categorically state, he knew only what  he  was
counseled by the MPF - that he would  incur  a  two-year  ADSC  for
attending FWS.  Counsel closes by arguing that this Board  may  not
base its decisions on unsubstantiated “rumor” derived from a single
unsworn e-mail message.   His  complete  statement  and  additional
documentary  evidence  submitted  in  support   of   his   client’s
application are included as Exhibit H with Attachments 1 and 2.

___________________________________________________________________

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.  In  this  regard,  we
note that the  applicant  contends  that  prior  to  attending  the
USAFWS, he was counseled via an AF Form 63 that he would receive  a
two-year commitment for attending the course; that after  attending
the course, he was again counseled via an AF Form 63  that  he  had
received a two-year ADSC for attending  the  USAFWS;  and  that  18
months after completion of training at the USAFWS,  his  commitment
was increased three years and two days when his ADSC was changed to
15 June 2002.  Despite the clear-cut evidence of  miscounseling  by
MPF personnel, the  Air  Force  still  recommends  denial.   It  is
indicated that although the applicant states he should be given  an
ADSC according to the AF Form 63 he signed,  they  believe  he  was
fully aware of the five-year ADSC and is capitalizing on  the  MPFs
miscounseling to reduce his obligation.  They  indicate  that  they
would be surprised if the applicant could  categorically  deny,  in
writing, any knowledge of the five-year ADSC, prior  to  or  during
his training.  They concede, however, that the Air  Force  Training
Management System (AFTMS) contained an erroneous two-year ADSC  and
that the applicant was formally  miscounseled  by  his  MPF.   Even
though an airman in the MPF made an error on the AF Form 63, it  is
believed that it would be a greater wrong to remove  an  ADSC  that
they believe was willingly and knowingly  incurred.   In  addition,
the Air Force indicates that  their  discussions  with  AFPC  rated
assignment functionals and the USAF Weapons Registrar confirm  that
the rated community was well aware of the five-year ADSC along with
the system “loophole” to get  around  it.   Nonetheless,  they  can
provide no direct evidence that the applicant was aware of the five-
year FWS ADSC prior to accepting the training.  On the other  hand,
the applicant counters the Air Force’s  argument  by  categorically
denying any knowledge of the five-year ADSC and submits that if  he
had been aware of the true commitment, he would not  have  accepted
the training.  In view of the foregoing and in  the  absence  of  a
basis to question the applicant’s integrity, we  believe  that  the
applicant has established by a preponderance of the  evidence  that
he was not timely apprised of the five-year ADSC as contemplated by
Air Force  policy.   Therefore,  in  the  interest  of  equity  and
justice, his request for removal of the ADSC should be granted.

___________________________________________________________________

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 United States Air Force Weapons School on 16 June
1997, be declared void.

___________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this  application  in
Executive Session on 12 November 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 31 Mar 99, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPR, dated 23 Sep 99, w/atchs.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 1 Oct 99.
     Exhibit E.  Electronic Mail from Counsel, dated 18 Oct 99.
     Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 20 Oct 99.
     Exhibit G.  Letter from Applicant, dated 28 Oct 99, w/atchs.
     Exhibit H.  Letter from Counsel, dated 29 Oct 99, w/atchs.




                                   BENEDICT A. KAUSAL IV
                                   Panel Chair








AFBCMR 99-01407




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  the  five-
year Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) incurred as a result  of
his completion of the United States Air  Force  Weapons  School  on
16 June 1997, be, and hereby is, declared void.









       JOE G. LINEBERGER

       Director

       Air Force Review Boards Agency