RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  99-01416
                                        INDEX NUMBER:  113.04
                                        COUNSEL:  NONE

                                        HEARING DESIRED: NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His five-year Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) be  changed  to
2 July 2000.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was  coerced  into  signing  [an  AF  Form  63]  indicating  his
acceptance of the five-year ADSC for Initial Qualification Training
(IQT) in the C-21A.

Applicant states, in part, that he received his commission in  1990
when the ADSC was eight years for completion of Undergraduate Pilot
Training (UPT).  After graduating from pilot training, he  received
an assignment to the C-21  (three-year  commitment)  with  a  Major
Weapon System (MWS)  follow-on  assignment  (five-year  commitment)
which neatly fit into the  eight-year  time  frame.   The  training
times and relocation times were unaccounted for in  each  of  these
assignments.  The C-21 training lasted  two  months,  the  survival
training was one month, and the  MWS  training  was  three  months.
Furthermore, he had to wait five months beyond  his  Date  Expected
Return  from  Overseas   (DEROS)   for   an   MWS   training   date
involuntarily.  According to AFI 36-2110, para. 5.17, his DEROS may
only be extended 120 days involuntarily.  Yet his DEROS (12 Oct 95)
to his MWS training date (1 Mar 96) was 139 days.   Ultimately,  he
committed to eight years of service after  UPT  only  to  have  the
military  hand  him  nine  years  worth  of  assignments   at   UPT
graduation.

Applicant further states that the time for training and waiting for
training dates equates to 11 months of commitment beyond his  pilot
training ADSC.  He informed an officer at AFMC  tanker  assignments
that in accordance with AFI 36-2ll0, para. 6.4, he did not want  to
extend his ADSC beyond his pilot training commitment.  When he  was
sent to MWS training, this officer told him, “you  sign  the  five-
year ADSC or I will ship you out to Germany next week to be an  ALO
with the Army.”  At the time, he was coerced into signing the five-
year ADSC.  He requests that the MWS ADSC start time be  backed  up
to include the  excess  training  and  wait  times  of  11  months.
Applicant’s complete statement is included as Exhibit A.
___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant completed KC-10 Initial Qualification Training  (IQT)  on
1 June 1996 and incurred  a  five-year  ADSC  of  30  May  2001  in
accordance with AFI 36-2107, Table 1.5, Rule 1.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial of the application.  It states,  in
part, that the applicant’s argument appears to stem from his belief
that the eight-year ADSC for Undergraduate Pilot Training (UPT)  is
his preeminent commitment to the Air Force and as  such,  overrides
all other  obligations.   This  belief  is  not  supported  by  any
documentation presented by the member in his appeal.

Furthermore, AFI 35-2107 clearly states an ADSC  is  incurred  when
training is completed.  The member acknowledged this fact  when  he
signed the AF Forms 63,  Officer  ADSC  Counseling  Statements,  on
23 July 1997  for  Initial  Qualification  Training  in  the  C-21A
aircraft, and on 13 June 1997 for upgrade  training  in  the  KC-10
aircraft.  They find the applicant’s request to discount  the  time
spent in actual training suspect in  light  of  the  counseling  he
received.  Delays in training are also hard  realities  that  occur
due to difficulties in scheduling, weather or mechanical  problems.
It would be naïve  to  overlook  these  factors  when  establishing
career goals.

The applicant also states he was “coerced” into signing  the  five-
year ADSC to 31 May 01.   However,  far  from  being  coerced,  the
member was given a choice and made the selection that suited him at
the time.  He also had the opportunity to 7-day opt the  assignment
and establish a date of separation, but chose not to.  As a result,
they cannot  establish  any  measure  of  “harm”  suffered  by  the
applicant in fulfilling his ADSC  (Exhibit  C  with  Attachments  1
through 4).

In  response  to  applicant’s  contention  that   the   involuntary
extension of his DEROS for 139 days was contrary  to  AFI  36-2110,
paragraph 5.17, HQ AFPC/DPPRS provides a more complete copy of  the
AFI in question  and  informally  advises  that  they  believe  the
applicant misconstrued the information in paragraph 5.17.   He  did
not review Table 27 to see that the maximum extension for  training
was 180 days rather than 120 (Exhibit F).
___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states, in part, that he is not asking to reduce his ADSC
for IQT in the KC-10 from five years to four years as suggested  by
AFPC.  He is requesting relief from his extended DEROS by 139  days
in 1995 in accordance with AFI 36-2110, paragraph  5.17  (Atch  3).
He also requests relief from the remaining  195  days  of  training
time that  he  incurred  outside  of  his  initial  eight-year  UPT
commitment.

The author of the advisory opinion stated that he had a few options
when commencing training with the associated five-year  commitment.
His memorandum says, “he had  the  opportunity  to  7-day  opt  the
assignment and establish a date of separation,  but  he  chose  not
to.”  He  asked  an  officer  at  AFPC/DPAOM  (the  signer  of  the
attachment 2 message from AFPC) about the 7-day option to establish
a date of separation.   The  officer  told  him  that  he  was  not
eligible for this option since his UPT commitment was beyond  three
years.  Furthermore, he threatened him  with  an  involuntary  long
overseas tour to  follow  his  long  overseas  tour  that  he  just
completed if he did not begin training  in  the  KC-10.   The  only
option truly available to him was to extend his ADSC 11 months (139
days plus the 195 days previously  mentioned)  beyond  his  initial
eight-year UPT commitment.

Additionally,  the  advisory  opinion  states  that  they   “cannot
establish any measure of harm  suffered  by  the  applicant.”   The
measure of harm is that he was coerced into 11 additional months of
ADSC.  Simply correcting his records to indicate 2 July 2000 as his
ADSC for the initial KC-10 training will alleviate this “measure of
harm.” (Exhibit G with Attachments 1 through 3).

___________________________________________________________________

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 office of primary responsibility and  adopt  their
rationale as the basis for our conclusion that  the  applicant  has
not been the victim of an error or injustice.   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 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

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 24 May 99, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 30 Jul 99, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 16 Aug 99.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 20 Aug 99.
    Exhibit F.  Datafax, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 1 Sep 99, w/atch.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, dated 30 Aug 99, w/atchs.




                                   BENEDICT A. KAUSAL IV
                                   Panel Chair