RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  99-01243
            INDEX NUMBER:  113.04
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) be corrected to reflect a
three-year ADSC for crossflow from  the  C-141  to  the  KC-10,  as
opposed to the five-year ADSC currently listed.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Prior to his accepting a crossflow assignment, he was  informed  by
crossflow  program  administrators  at  HQ  AMC/DPROA  and   formal
training personnel that the ADSC for crossflow from  the  C-141  to
the KC-10 was being changed to three years.

Applicant states, in part, that he was assured the  AFI  was  being
changed to read “air mobility to air mobility” MWS (to include  the
KC-10s  and  KC-135s).  His  points   of   contact   during   these
conversations were Capts Rich  “A”  and  Tom  “K”,  (HQ  AMC/DPOA).
Based on the information these officers provided, he  accepted  the
assignment with reasonable assurance his ADSC would be  changed  to
three years.  When processing through the Military Personnel Flight
(MPF) at Travis, he signed for a five-year ADSC thinking  it  would
retroactively change to a three-year ADSC.  Again this was based on
information he received  from  the  assignment  officers  mentioned
above.   HQ  AFPC  recently  implemented  formal  changes  to   the
crossflow program requiring a  three-year  ADSC  rather  than  five
years.  This action corrects the  erroneous  five-year  ADSC.   For
this reason, he requests his records  be  corrected  to  reflect  a
three-year ADSC as opposed to five years.  Currently as  it  stands
his ADSC takes him six months beyond the date  he  is  eligible  to
retire.  Applicant’s complete statement is included  as  Exhibit  A
with Attachments 1 through 4.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant completed KC-10 Initial Qualification Training  (IQT)  on
27 November 1996.  As a result, he incurred  a  five-year  ADSC  of
26 November 2001.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS  recommends  that  the  application  be  denied.   It
indicates, in part, that the applicant presents documentation  from
his major command (AMC) regarding the pending change to AFI 36-2107
to reflect the move from C-141 to KC-10 as “crossflow” training and
the incurrence of a three-year vs. five-year ADSC.  However,  these
documents merely indicate an initiative that  was  ongoing  at  the
time of his assignment and are therefore irrelevant to  this  case.
The AFI was not changed until 3 August 1997 (nine months  after  he
completed training) and there were no provisions  to  "grandfather"
officers who had completed the training earlier.

Moreover, the applicant himself admits to signing for  a  five-year
ADSC prior to accepting the training event.  This is  supported  by
their copy of the AFPC Rated Assignment  worksheet  (Atch  3)  that
advised his MPF to compute a five-year ADSC IAW AFI 36-2107,  Table
1.5, Rule 1, for initial training.   This  information  would  have
been reflected in Section V  of  the  assignment  notification  RIP
which the applicant would have signed – unfortunately, the MPF only
maintained this RIP in the  assignment  relocation  folder  for  90
days; therefore, a copy is not on file (Exhibit C with  Attachments
1 through 3).

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states  that  in  the  fall  of  1994,  he  competed  for
crossflow to the KC-10 and was accepted.  He was working on the AMC
staff in the Plans and Programs Directorate.  On or about  December
of that same year he was selected to attend the United States  Army
Command and General Staff  College  (USACGSC)  at  Ft  Leavenworth,
Kansas.  He elected to attend USACGSC and was informed  by  HQ  AMC
personnel managers that he would still be able to crossflow to  the
KC-10 following graduation.  In December of 1995, while at USACGSC,
he was informed he would not be able to crossflow and that he would
be returning to the C-141.  Though unhappy with  this  decision  he
was ready to get back  to  the  cockpit.   Shortly  thereafter,  in
January of 1996, he was told he would be going to  the  KC-10.   It
appears  BG  Bobby  “F”  intervened  on  his  behalf,  without  his
knowledge and without his asking for  his  assistance.   A  USACGSC
classmate who was selected to crossflow at the same time as him (C-
130 to the KC-135) was informed his slot was cancelled as  well  so
he called General “F”.  The end  result  was  they  both  ended  up
changing weapons systems.

Had  he  returned  to  the  C-141  or  crossflowed  when  initially
selected, his ADSC would not be an  issue.   Since  he  elected  to
attend USACGSC and then crossflow the result was the  establishment
of an ADSC that is six months  later  than  the  date  that  he  is
eligible to retire.  Also, as previously  stated,  he  was  led  to
believe his ADSC would change  with  the  change  to  AFI  36-2107.
Lastly, his USACGSC classmate, Lieutenant Colonel Al “L”, went from
the C-130 to the  KC-135  and  was  given  a  three-year  ADSC  for
crossflow.  He recently confirmed this with him as he is  a  KC-135
squadron commander at McConnell AFB.  The bottom line is  he  wants
to be treated fairly regarding his request.  Two pilots  at  Travis
AFB, one crossflowed before him and one after him, each requested a
change to their ADSC and both requests were approved by the  Board.
He is asking for the same consideration.   Theses  two  pilots  are
Major Gary “B” and Major Ken “K”.  A precedent has been set and  he
respectfully requests approval of his request as well.  His longest
ADSC would then be 21 May 00 for  KC-10  Instructor  Upgrade.   His
ADSC for crossflow should be 26 May 99.

In conclusion, applicant states that the driving force behind  this
requested change is that he wants to be able to retire on 1 June 01
without having to request a waiver to his ADSC for retirement or be
delayed pursuing a new career following a 20-year Air Force career.
 A career that involved many sacrifices yet one  that  he  is  very
proud of.  Also, a 1 Jun 01 retirement date would allow him to move
his family before the start of the next school year thus  lessening
the turbulence they would experience during  an  already  difficult
time (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.  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  respect,  we
note that the applicant contends that  prior  to  his  accepting  a
crossflow  assignment,  he  was  informed  by   crossflow   program
administrators at HQ AMC/DPROA and formal training  personnel  that
the ADSC for crossflow from  the  C-141  to  the  KC-10  was  being
changed to three years.  He further states that he was assured  the
AFI was being changed to read “air mobility to  air  mobility”  MWS
(to include the KC-10s and KC-135s).  His points of contact  during
these conversations  were  Captains  Rich  “A”  and  Tom  “K”,  (HQ
AMC/DPOA).  Based on the information these  officers  provided,  he
accepted the assignment with reasonable assurance his ADSC would be
changed to three years.  When processing through the MPF at Travis,
he signed for a five-year  ADSC  thinking  it  would  retroactively
change to a three-year ADSC.  Again this was based  on  information
he received from the assignment officers mentioned above.   On  the
other hand,  the  Air  Force  notes  that  the  applicant  presents
documentation from his major command (AMC)  regarding  the  pending
change to AFI 36-2107 to reflect the move from C-141  to  KC-10  as
“crossflow” training and the incurrence of a three-year  vs.  five-
year ADSC.  The Air Force believes these documents merely  indicate
an initiative that was ongoing at the time of  his  assignment  and
are therefore irrelevant to this case.  Lastly, it  is  noted  that
the AFI was not changed until 3 August 1997 (nine months  after  he
completed training) and there were no provisions  to  “grandfather”
officers who had completed the training earlier.

4.  Responding to the Air Force’s rationale, the  applicant  points
out that two pilots at his base, one crossflowed before him and one
after him, each requested a change to their ADSC and both  requests
were approved by this Board.  This is not quite true.   We  granted
one of these cases and the Air Force administratively corrected the
other.  The case we granted contained the same argument; i.e.,  the
officer was informed by the crossflow administrators at HQ AMC/DPOA
and formal training personnel that the ADSC was three  years;  that
he knew of the five-year ADSC, but was told that the AFI was to  be
changed to reflect “air mobility to air mobility” and that he would
incur a three-year ADSC.  Based on all the  circumstances  of  this
case, we concluded that this officer was induced into transitioning
into the KC-10 and incurring  the  associated  five-year  IQT  ADSC
under the assumption that he would incur a three-year ADSC.   Since
the other officer’s case was administratively corrected by the  Air
Force, we are unable to determine  the  precise  reasons  for  that
action at this  late  date.   The  common  theme  in  these  cases,
however, is the fact that it appears that a number of officers were
led to believe that the IQT training ADSC was going to  be  reduced
from  five  years  to  three  years  retroactively  by  responsible
officials at HQ AMC.  Nonetheless, since the applicant  signed  the
AF Form 63 acknowledging the  five-year  ADSC,  we  would  normally
conclude that the relief sought should be denied.   In  this  case,
however, the five-year IQT ADSC  takes  the  applicant  six  months
beyond the date he would be eligible to retire from the service  if
he  chooses  to  do  so.   In  view  of  the  foregoing,   and   in
consideration of the fact that  the  possibility  exists  that  the
applicant may have been induced into accepting the  five-year  ADSC
under the assumption that it was going to be  reduced,  we  believe
the benefit of the doubt should  be  resolved  in  his  favor.   In
arriving at our decision, we note that this action  merely  permits
the applicant to voluntarily  retire  upon  reaching  20  years  of
honorable service without having to seek a waiver -- a waiver  that
most likely would 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  he  incurred  a
three-year  year  Active  Duty   Service   Commitment   (ADSC)   of
26 November 1999 as a result of his  completion  of  KC-10  Initial
Qualification Training on 27 November 1996.

___________________________________________________________________

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 6 May 99, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 2 Aug 99, w/atchs.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 23 Aug 99.
     Exhibit E.  Letter from Applicant, dated 20 Sep 99.




                                   BENEDICT A. KAUSAL IV
                                   Panel Chair








AFBCMR 99-01243




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 he incurred a three-
year Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) of 26 November 1999 as a
result of his completion of KC-10 Initial Qualification Training on
27 November 1996.






       JOE G. LINEBERGER

       Director

       Air Force Review Boards Agency