RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  00-00266
            INDEX NUMBER:  131.02
XXXXXXXXXXXXX.   COUNSEL:  NO

      XXXXXXXXXXX      HEARING DESIRED:  YES

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) he incurred by  accepting
Tuition Assistance (TA) be “backed out”; and, that he be allowed to
pay the amount of the TA, totaling $949.50.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was inaccurately counseled regarding the terms of accepting TA.

He states, in part, that his understanding was that  in  the  event
that he wanted to separate from the Air Force prior  to  completing
the ADSC incurred by accepting TA,  he  would  be  responsible  for
paying back a portion of the money based on the portion of the ADSC
he completed.  He thought this was a matter of procedures and based
his decision on this misunderstanding.  He would not have  accepted
the TA if he had been accurately briefed on the terms of the  ADSC.
He was not fully aware of the terms  of  the  commitment  until  he
applied for separation.

Applicant’s complete statement and documentary  evidence  submitted
in support of his  application  are  included  as  Exhibit  A  with
Attachments 1 through 11.
___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant was counseled on and voluntarily accepted a two-year ADSC
for TA via the AF Form 63, Officer ADSC  Counseling  Statement,  on
8 December 1998 and 9 March 1999.  As a result, he  received  ADSCs
of 13 February 01 and 15 May 01, which are served concurrently.

On 29 December 1999, the applicant requested a date  of  separation
of 14 May 00 as an exception  to  policy.   The  Chief,  Technology
Division, of his organization  supported  his  separation  request.
She indicated that he was currently one  of  two  analysts  on  his
slot.  Therefore, releasing him would have a manageable  short-term
impact and no long-term impact, as it would not result in a  vacant
billet.  However, the applicant’s commander indicated that he could
not approve his request.  The commander indicated that the National
Air  Intelligence  Center  (NAIC)  was  severely   undermanned   in
engineers and he could not argue for more  resources  when  he  was
allowing engineers to leave early.  Applicant’s request for a  date
of  separation  as  an  exception  to   policy   was   subsequently
disapproved.
___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS, Officer Separations, recommends that the application
be denied.  They do not support his request to remove the  ADSC  he
voluntarily agreed to accept and fulfill.  Although  the  applicant
states he was inaccurately counseled on the terms of the ADSC,  the
AF Forms 63 he signed prove otherwise.

Each form clearly advises the applicant against accepting any  ADSC
information other than that contained in the form  (i.e.,  promises
implied or otherwise, concerning the possibility or probability  of
retirement or separation prior to serving the ADSC).   The  obvious
purpose for this statement is to preclude officers  from  believing
or assuming anything other than specifically stated  in  the  form.
The forms also state “…only the Secretary of the Air Force  or  his
designee may excuse [the applicant] from [his] obligation to  serve
on active  duty  for  the  period  specified  in  this  agreement.”
Nowhere on the form does  it  state  or  imply  the  ADSC  will  be
shortened or removed based on the applicant’s desire or ability  to
“pay back” the cost of education.  Rather, both forms  provide  the
terms  for  recoupment  by  advising  the  applicant  if  he   were
voluntarily separated or separated for misconduct, the Secretary of
the Air Force or his designee may direct reimbursement for the cost
of education.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.
___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant does not concur with the  Air  Force  Evaluation  and
believes that this additional information will justify  overturning
it and finding the case in his favor.

First, section II [of the AF Form 63] states,  “I  certify  I  have
been counseled on the  ADSC(s)…”  and  then  in  subsection  d,  it
states, “I have  not  received  any  ADSC  information  other  than
contained  herein.”   These   two   statements   are   in   obvious
contradiction.  Next, section II subsection f states that only  the
Secretary of the Air Force or his designee may excuse him from  his
obligation to serve on active duty for the period specified in  his
agreement, however, subsection g part 2 states, in part, “If  I  am
voluntarily  separated”  which  implies  that  there  is  still   a
possibility for the applicant to  voluntarily  separate.   He  also
thinks it is important to note that the last portion of  subsection
g part 2 outlines the manner in which reimbursement will be handled
in the event that the Secretary of the Air Force or his  designated
representative directs reimbursement.

At the time he signed the forms, he did ask about these  vague  and
contradictory  statements.   The  explanation  given  led  him   to
understand that a  process  was  in  place  (apparently  under  the
authority of the Secretary of the Air Force) that allowed  for  the
reimbursement of the TA in the event that he voluntarily separated.
 He believes that the form, as it is written  (and  given  that  no
additional  information  can  be   relied   upon),   supports   his
interpretation every bit as well  as  the  interpretation  that  is
currently used.  It was only after he attempted to separate that he
was made fully aware of the accepted Air Force interpretation.

The applicant’s complete response is at 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 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 the 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  considered   with   this
application.

___________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this  application  in
Executive  Session  on  23  May  2000,  under  the  provisions   of
AFI 36-2603:

      Mrs. Barbara A. Westgate, Panel Chair
      Mr. Mike Novel, Member
      Mrs. Kathy L. Boockholdt, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, 27 Jan 00, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 31 Mar 00, w/atch.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated, 14 Apr 00.
     Exhibit E.  Memorandum, Applicant, 4 May 00.



                                   BARBARA A. WESTGATE
                                   Panel Chair
_