RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  00-00075
            INDEX CODE:  100.00
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His personnel records reflect only those  Active  Duty  Service  Commitments
(ADSCs) that he volunteered for.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

When he was presented with an AF Form 63 by a military  personnel  counselor
to accept an eight-year ADSC, he declined to accept; and, as  a  result,  he
believes his personnel record is  in  error  and  unjust  for  listing  this
commitment.

Applicant states, in part, that there are several reasons why  this  service
commitment is unjust.  He refused to sign the only form that  asked  him  to
volunteer for an eight-year service commitment.  Since  service  commitments
should be agreed  upon  prior  to  initiating  training,  he  believes  that
military personnel at Columbus AFB, MS, erred  by  not  explaining  when  he
started  pilot  training  that  there  would  be  an  eight-year  ADSC   for
Undergraduate Pilot Training (UPT).  The personnel counselor  who  presented
him with the AF Form 63 explained she was trying to fix the  error  made  by
the military personnel at Columbus AFB.  She told him that  he  should  have
been given the form to sign before he started  training.  Second,  prior  to
completing UPT, the eight-year service commitment  was  never  explained  or
briefed  to  him  by  anyone  acting  in  an  official  capacity,  including
commanders or personnel officers.  He assumed he would incur  an  ADSC  upon
completing UPT but he had to come to a conclusion on  his  own  as  to  what
that  commitment  would  be.   Air  Force  personnel  regulations  were  not
available in the flying squadron at Columbus AFB to review, nor  were  these
regulations  available  at  Naval  Air  Station  Corpus  Christi  where   he
completed the second half of pilot training.  He  heard  rumors  from  other
students that the commitment was anywhere from  5  to  10  years.   He  also
found out about the length of a UPT ADSC by reviewing the  record  of  other
UPT graduates.  He learned that a player for  the  Dallas  Cowboys  football
team had served approximately five years on  active  duty.   He  also  spoke
with a colonel who had incurred a five-year  ADSC  for  Undergraduate  Pilot
Training (UPT).  From this information, he concluded  that  his  ADSC  would
also  be  approximately  five  years.   Applicant’s  complete  statement  is
included as Attachment 1 to Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant graduated from the United States  Air  Force  Academy  (USAFA)  in
1996 and entered on active  duty  to  attend  Undergraduate  Pilot  Training
(UPT).  Upon completion of UPT on 14 February 1998, he  incurred  an  eight-
year ADSC of 2006 under the provisions of AFR 36-2107, Table l.4, Rule 6.

On 12 March 1998, the applicant was presented an OFFICER/AIRMAN ACTIVE  DUTY
SERVICE COMMITMENT (ADSC) COUNSELING STATEMENT, AF  Form  63,  acknowledging
that he would incur an eight-year ADSC upon completion of PV4PC  (apparently
pilot training), but he declined to sign the form.   He  indicated  that  he
was told that the ADSC would be five years at Columbus AFB, MS.

Applicant’s application was initially considered by  the  AFPC/CC,  who  has
delegated authority to grant the relief if he finds it to  be  in  the  best
interest of the Air Force.  Upon denial of his request by AFPC/CC, his  case
was referred to the AFBCMR in accordance with established procedures.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In advising the Commander, AFPC,  of  his  delegated  authority  to  correct
ADSCs, AFPC/JA recommends that the  applicant’s  request  be  denied.   That
office indicates that in determining what is “fair” in applicant’s case,  we
should start with the Air Force ADSC Instruction.  One of the  basic  tenets
of  this  Instruction  is  that  a  member  should  be  “…  advised  of  and
voluntarily accept ADSCs prior to accepting an ADSC-incurring event….”   The
key element in determining if an ADSC was voluntarily accepted is whether  a
member  had  knowledge  of  his  commitment  before  he  entered  into   the
agreement.  The issue of whether applicant had knowledge of  his  eight-year
commitment becomes muddled because Academy graduates  did  not  sign  an  AF
Form  63  (or  any  other  documentation)  specifically  setting   out   the
commitment length prior to entry into UPT; consequently, there is no  direct
evidence that applicant knew of the eight-year commitment.

The first, and most obvious, inquiry here is to examine what applicant  says
about his knowledge of the UPT ADSC.  He states in  his  AFBCMR  application
that his service commitment was never explained to  him  by  what  he  terms
“anyone acting in  an  official  capacity.”   He  does  not  deny  receiving
information  in  some  other  manner,  nor  being  presented  with   written
information (such as the ADSC Handbook all cadets  receive)  concerning  his
commitment.  In fact, he admits to hearing “rumors from other students  that
the commitment was anywhere from 5  to  10  years.”   Applicant  presents  a
portrait of confusion as to what his correct ADSC would be, but he  did  not
try to clarify his service commitment with any Air Force official;  instead,
he decided to embark on his own investigation by “reviewing the  records  of
other UPT graduates.”  Even if we accept the dubious premise that  applicant
had access to privacy protected records, his stated logic trail leading  him
to conclude his ADSC would be “approximately  5  years”  is  not  plausible.
The sole record influencing  his  opinion  that  his  ADSC  was  five  years
belonged to a 1988 graduate of USAFA.  *  was  a  star  football  player  at
USAFA whose commitment was curtailed under a program  enabling  athletes  to
join professional sports teams.  Not only is *  well  known,  but  also  his
record would have reflected his special situation. Reliance on  the  *  case
to  justify  a  five-year  commitment  rises  to  the  level  of  absurdity.
Applicant does not mention the other “records” he supposedly  reviewed.   If
he did review records of  similarly  situated  cadets  it  would  have  been
apparent to him that they all incurred an eight-year service commitment  for
UPT. Based on the circumstantial evidence  provided,  it  is  their  opinion
that applicant was aware, or should have been aware, of the  eight-year  UPT
commitment.

In an effort to determine what applicant knew, or should have  known,  about
his  ADSC,  AFPC/DPRS  did  an  extensive  investigation   concerning   what
information regarding  ADSC  commitments  was  available  to  applicant  and
similarly situated cadets.  The investigation revealed that all cadets  were
given  an  “ADSC  Handbook”  which  specifically  set  out  the   eight-year
commitment for UPT and they also received regular briefings  regarding  ADSC
lengths for various training programs -- including UPT.   Additionally,  ten
of applicant’s classmates were surveyed; all were aware  of  the  eight-year
commitment and were of the opinion that it would be highly  unlikely  for  a
classmate to have not known about the UPT  ADSC.   The  key  point  is  that
there was a USAFA procedure in place to notify  cadets  of  ADSCs,  and  the
available evidence shows that this procedure was followed in his case.

Since the greater weight of the available  evidence  supports  a  conclusion
that applicant knew, or should have known, of his ADSC, it is their  opinion
that having applicant fulfill his obligation is both fair and  in  the  best
interests of the  Air  Force.   While  the  underlying  premise  of  SECAF’s
delegation to AFPC/CC is that  the  authority  be  used  liberally  for  the
benefit of members; nevertheless, it is certainly not in the  best  interest
of the Air Force to grant relief when such relief is clearly not  warranted.
 Applicant is being treated in the same manner as his fellow  USAFA  cadets.
He is obligated to serve an eight-year term for completion  of  UPT,  as  is
every  similarly  situated  graduate.   This  is  fair  commitment  and  the
evidence shows that the Air Force acted in a  proper  manner  and  applicant
voluntarily incurred his commitment (A complete copy of  AFPC/JA’s  advisory
opinion to AFPC/CC is included as Attachment 1 to Exhibit C)

HQ AFPC/DPPRS also recommends that the application be denied.   That  office
reiterates  the  rationale  provided  by  AFPC/JA  and  concludes  that  the
applicant clearly understood he would incur an  ADSC  for  UPT  and  he  was
notified as to the length of the commitment prior to training  in  his  AFSC
Handbook.  He also acknowledged in writing that  he  could  incur  ADSCs  in
addition to his USAFA ADSC IAW AFR 36-51 (which  was  subsequently  replaced
by AFI 36-2107).  If he had  any  questions  regarding  the  length  of  his
commitment following  UPT,  he  need  only  have  consulted  the  applicable
authoritative  guidance  rather  than  making  an  assumption   based   upon
unrelated examples such as those provided in his  application.   (Exhibit  C
with Attachments 1 through 4).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In a letter of August 31, 2000, applicant asks  that  the  Board  reactivate
his application for consideration.  (In a letter of June 22,  2000,  he  had
asked that his application be temporarily  withdrawn  to  provide  him  more
time to respond to the advisory opinions.)  He  states,  in  part,  that  it
should be noted that the advisory opinion did not address  the  AF  Form  63
that pertains to  this  request.   He  has  maintained  that  he  would  not
volunteer for an eight-year ADSC associated with UPT.   He  would  not  have
initiated this training and he would have eliminated himself  from  training
at any point had he learned an eight-year commitment  would  be  applied  to
his records.  As a last resort he will surrender  his  pilot  rating  rather
than accept the involuntary eight-year commitment.

The opinion written by HQ AFPC/DPPRS states “USAFA cadets  do  not  complete
an AF Form 63….”   Currently,  under  improved  guidance  from  the  new  AF
regulation 36-2107, dated l June 2000, USAFA cadets who are  to  attend  UPT
do complete an Air Force Form 63.  Although USAFA cadets were not  routinely
presented with AF Forms 63 prior to this improved regulation,  he  is  aware
of several USAFA graduates from the class of 1996  who  completed  different
UPT classes at NAS Corpus Christi and  did  sign  AF  Forms  63.   He  cites
several of these individuals by name and advises that  one  officer  who  is
assigned to his current  squadron  describes  his  situation  Attachment  1.
This issue also applies to a statement  from  AFPC/JA;  “Lt.  “A”  is  being
treated in the same manner as his fellow  USAFA  cadets.”   They  were  only
treated in the same manner up to the point  that  they  were  presented  the
same AF Form 63.  It is documented that fellow USAFA graduates accepted  the
eight-year commitment but this  is  not  true  for  himself.   The  officers
listed are 1996 USAFA graduates who were presented an  AF  Form  63  in  the
same manner as he was and they voluntarily  accepted  the  eight-year  ADSC.
It is unjust for the Air Force to take the position  that  these  forms  are
only applied if the AF Forms 63  were  signed  and  agreed  to,  but  if  an
officer refused to accept the ADSC the forms  are  considered  illegitimate.
Applicant’s complete statement in support of his application is included  as
Exhibit G with Attachments 1 through 4.

________________________________________________________________

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  warranting  favorable  action
on the applicant’s request.  His contention, in  essence,  that  because  he
declined to accept the AF Form 63 presented to him by a  military  personnel
counselor after he had completed UPT causes his eight-year  ADSC  to  be  in
error or unjust is duly noted.  However, we do not find this contention,  in
and by itself, sufficiently compelling to override  the  rationale  provided
by the Air Force.  As noted by AFPC/JA,  since  Academy  graduates  did  not
sign AF Forms 63 at the time in question, there is no direct  evidence  that
applicant  knew  of  the  eight-year  UPT  commitment.    Nonetheless,   the
preponderance of the evidence in this case supports the conclusion that  the
applicant  knew  or  should  have  known,  of  his  eight-year   UPT   ADSC.
Therefore, in the absence of substantial evidence to the contrary, we  agree
with the rationale expressed by AFPC/JA  and  adopt  its  rationale  as  the
basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain  his  burden
of establishing the existence of either an error or an injustice  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 8 November 2000 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                       Mr. Benedict A. Kausal, IV, Panel Chair
                       Mr. Charles E. Bennett, Member
                       Mr. Henry Romo, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 13 December 1999, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Microfiche Copy of Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 8 June 2000, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 23 June 2000.
      Exhibit E.  Letter from applicant, dated 22 June 2000.
      Exhibit F.  Letter from AFBCMR, dated 19 July 2000.
      Exhibit G.  Letter from applicant, dated 31 August 2000, w/atchs.



                                   BENEDICT A. KAUSAL, IV
                                   Panel Chair