RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  00-01613


            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Active Duty Service Commitments (ADSCs) from both Undergraduate
Pilot Training (UPT) and Initial Qualification  Training  (IQT)  be
amended to March 2003.
___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

As a member of the United States Air Force Academy class  of  1992,
he was denied the promise and  guarantee  of  pilot  training  upon
graduation; that this “Deferred Entry” into  UPT  created  numerous
disparities between how his career has  unfolded  compared  to  his
peers;  that  these   disparities   include   financial   concerns,
opportunities for promotion, and ADSC considerations.

Applicant states, in part, that financially, by being “deferred” as
opposed to being “banked,” he has missed  out  on  three  years  of
flight pay and at least half  of  the  ACP  bonus.   Banked  pilots
received flight pay from the beginning, and  because  they  started
accruing years towards their commitments, they  are  also  eligible
for the bonus three years earlier than the  deferred  entry  pilot.
He is not requesting financial reimbursement.  He simply lists this
issue as another major discrepancy between himself and his peers.

The ADSC issue  is  the  primary  area  that  he  feels  should  be
reviewed.  For those pilots  who  were  “banked,”  the  ADSC  clock
started immediately even though they were in non-flying  positions.
Upon receiving further training after three years  of  not  flying,
their ADSCs were cut almost in half.  He feels it was  unjust  that
his three years in a non-flying position were punitive in  relation
to ADSC and financial concerns.  Therefore, he  requests  that  the
three years spent in a non-flying assignment be considered as  part
of his current ADSC as it is for all those who were  “banked.”   If
his ADSC is amended to March 2003, he will have served 11 years  in
the Air Force, which he feels is commensurate with the training  he
has received and is a longer  TAFMSD  than  many  of  the  “banked”
pilots he graduated with.

Applicant’s request is at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________S
TATEMENT OF FACTS:

Title 10, United States Code, Section 653, states that the  minimum
service  obligation  of  any  member  who  successfully   completes
training in the armed forces as a pilot shall be 8  years,  if  the
member is trained to fly fixed-wing jet aircraft, or  6  years,  if
the member is trained to fly any other type of aircraft.

Applicant attended Undergraduate Pilot Training  (UPT)  during  the
period 7 August 1995 through 16 August 1996.  Upon  graduation,  in
accordance with Air Force  Instruction  (AFI)  36-2107,  ADSCs  and
Specified Period of Time Contracts, dated 6 Jul 94 (the instruction
in effect at the time), Table 1.4, Rule 6, he  incurred  an  eight-
year ADSC of 15 August 2004.

He subsequently attended C-5 Initial Qualification  Training  (IQT)
during the period 5 January 2000 through 30 March 2000.  IAW AFI 36-
2107, dated 6 Jul 94, Table l.5, Rule 1, the applicant  incurred  a
five-year ADSC of 29 Mar 2005.

Records on file at the Air Force Personnel  Center  show  applicant
agreed to serve an “8 year ADSC from date of award of  aeronautical
rating” for  UPT  via  an  AF  Form  63,  Officer  ADSC  Counseling
Statement, dated 30 Jul 95.  He also signed another AF Form  63  on
16 Dec 99, agreeing to serve the  5-year  ADSC  for  C-5  IQT  upon
completion of training.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial of the  application.   That  office
indicates, in part,  that  they  do  not  support  the  applicant’s
request to reduce the ADSCs he voluntarily  agreed  to  accept  and
fulfill.  He was clearly informed on both  occasions,  via  the  AF
Form 63, of the requirement to serve the 8-year  and  5-year  ADSCs
upon  completion  of  training.   Unfortunately,  this   point   is
overlooked in his comparison between deferred pilots (those with  a
delayed entry to UPT) and banked pilots (those  who  completed  UPT
after entering active duty, but  had  a  delay  in  entering  IQT).
Since ADSCs begin upon completion of training,  it  doesn’t  follow
that the applicant would serve an ADSC for a course he had not  yet
attended.  Using this  frame  of  reference,  it  is  important  to
underscore the fact that banked pilots did not receive any  special
ADSC considerations.  They began fulfilling their UPT and IQT ADSCs
under the same conditions as deferred pilots -- upon completion  of
training.  The applicant’s assertion  that  the  Air  Force  should
adjust his commitments because of a perceived  disparity  overlooks
the counseling he received prior to accepting each  training  event
(Exhibit C).

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states, in part, that he  feels  it  is  unjust  in  this
situation to blindly follow the AF Form 63 without considering  the
circumstances which led up to the  timing  of  when  the  form  was
signed.  The  drawdown  of  military  forces  in  the  early  1990s
negatively affected many individuals and families.  The reaction to
the drawdown continues to be negative as evidenced by  the  current
class action lawsuits being  waged  against  the  Air  Force.   The
problems with personnel management resulted in RIFs, SERBs, and the
banking and deferring of pilots.  The pilots who were deferred were
put into a no-win situation.  They had no  choice,  other  than  to
give up their dream of flying after four years of attendance at the
Academy.  They are now paying the  price  for  the  poor  personnel
management that the Air Force exhibited in the last decade, and  he
does not believe that it is fair.

Pilot training as a first assignment is  a  reasonable  expectation
for any  physically  qualified  United  States  Air  Force  Academy
graduate.  He has included a  page  from  the  1986  -  1988  USAFA
catalog that was sent  out  to  all  perspective  cadets  prior  to
attending the Academy.  He has highlighted a part of this statement
because it is the primary reason he attended the Academy.   It  was
the guarantee of pilot training after graduation that motivated him
to attend a prep school in order to gain admittance to the Academy.
 There is little doubt that the Academy would have a difficult time
filling up a class with pilot-qualified cadets if  they  advertised
his experience in their recruitment  catalog.   “After  graduation”
paints a much different picture than “after a three year non-flying
assignment.”  He realizes that the  needs  of  the  Air  Force  are
dynamic, but he also believes that under  these  circumstances  the
Air Force should make concessions.  The Air Force should be held to
the promises and expectations that were presented to  cadets  prior
to their attendance.  He feels that applying a portion of his three
years spent in a non-flying assignment to his  current  ADSC  is  a
reasonable request.

Many 1992 USAFA graduates did attend  pilot  training  as  a  first
assignment, and were subsequently placed in  a  “bank”  where  they
served in non-flying positions for up to three  years.   For  these
individuals, the ADSC time started when they graduated  from  pilot
training even though they were  serving  in  non-flying  positions.
The bottom line is that their commitment  “clock”  started  ticking
even though they were not in a flying position.  His issue is  that
he does not see the difference between holding an officer in a bank
and holding an officer in a deferred position.   Both  individuals,
at no fault of their own, are paying off their commitments in  non-
flying positions.  He understands the ramifications of signing  the
AF  Form  63,  but  the  Air  Force  should  allow  for  mitigating
circumstances.  As the situation currently stands, his three  years
spent in a non-flying position were punitive in  relation  to  ADSC
and financial concerns.

He is currently working with an individual whom he  graduated  with
in May 1992.  They were both commissioned on the same day and their
service commitments started at the same time.  This individual went
to pilot training as a first assignment and  was  subsequently  put
into the bank.  While  in  the  bank  he  worked  in  a  non-flying
position for three years and after additional  training  started  a
flying assignment.   During  this  exact  same  time  frame,  as  a
deferred pilot, he was in a non-flying position for three years and
then attended pilot training.  As  of  this  day,  they  both  have
exactly fours years of active flying duty  in  the  cockpit.   Even
though they have both served the exact same amount of time actively
flying, he gets to make a decision concerning his future in  August
2001, whereas he must wait to make his  decision  until  May  2005.
Applicant’s complete  statement  is  included  as  Exhibit  I  with
Attachments 1 and 2.

___________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Rated  Force  Policy,  Mobility  Forces  Directorate  of
Personnel Force Management provides an in-depth explanation for the
decision by the Air Force to delay his entry, as well as the  entry
of hundreds of other officers, into pilot training  and  recommends
denial of the applicant’s request.  It indicates, in part, that  at
a  time  when  Congress  ordered  significant  reductions   in   AF
personnel, the Air Force honored  its  commitment  to  these  young
officers by offering them delayed  opportunities  to  attend  pilot
training.  The drawdown of the early 1990s did cause  a  number  of
disruptions to personnel management, but as the  applicant  states,
he voluntarily accepted pilot training, as well as  the  commitment
for completing this training.  Applicant has not been  treated  any
differently  than  any  other  member  who  willingly  accepts  the
opportunity to become an Air Force pilot (Exhibit M).

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states, in  part,  that  the  advisory  opinion  included
information that covered various  commissioning  sources,  but  the
author did not include anywhere in the opinion that USAFA graduates
were guaranteed pilot training.  The advisory opinion implies  that
the Air Force did the members a favor by sending  cadets  to  pilot
training.  At that period in time, that was the incentive  to  gain
acceptance  to  the  academy,  as  opposed   to   utilizing   other
commissioning sources.

The Air Force’s stance (i.e., time spent in a non-flying assignment
is invalid and deserves no credit) is extremely closed-minded.  For
them it is a black and white issue with no areas of gray.  They are
of the opinion that the time that matters is that time served after
the training was received.  Alternatives  are  not  acceptable  and
mitigating circumstances do not matter.  As an example of this,  he
brings up the advisory opinion’s statement concerning the logic  of
reducing his ADSC for C-5 IQT  to  three  years.   He  states  that
according to his logic his UFT ADSC  should  be  increased  to  ten
years.  The point is missed again with this statement.  They do not
want to consider a small change concerning ADSC.  For them it  must
be a complete paradigm shift to another commitment.  The purpose of
filing this case was to request that someone think outside the  box
concerning this issue.  He simply does not believe that there is no
alternative to the current situation.

The advisory opinion states that “Capt “X” has not been treated any
differently  than  any  other  member  who  willingly  accepts  the
opportunity to become an AF pilot.”  The validity of this statement
is dependent upon whom he is being compared to.  If compared to his
USAFA classmates who were banked after  pilot  training  and  spent
three years in a non-flying position, there is definitely no  equal
treatment.  He also does  not  believe  that  the  equal  treatment
statement should be used as the litmus test  for  being  proper  or
“just” treatment.  Just because they made  the  same  mistake  with
other members does not make the outcome acceptable.

In conclusion, applicant states  that  he  finds  it  difficult  to
accept that his ADSC has been increased  this  amount  due  to  bad
timing.  While bad timing is a popular response to the situation he
is in, he firmly  believes  there  are  alternatives  that  may  be
considered.  This isolated policy change cannot be compared to  the
permanent  policy  changes  made  by  the  Air  Force  last  Spring
concerning ADSCs.  This was an isolated incident that only affected
his class.   Had  this  policy  been  in  place  either  before  or
continuously after his time frame he would not be filing this case.
 He finds it difficult to believe that there are no concessions  on
the part of the Air Force considering  this  isolated,  nonstandard
policy shift (Exhibit O with Attachment 1).

___________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided  by  existing
law or regulations.

2.  The applicant’s request to amend his 8-year UPT  ADSC  was  not
timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice  to  excuse
the failure to timely file.  The request to amend  his  5-year  IQT
ADSC is timely filed.

3.  Applicant’s contentions that as a member of the  United  States
Air Force Academy (USAFA) class of 1992, he was denied the  promise
and  guarantee  of  pilot  training  upon  graduation;  that   this
“Deferred Entry” into UPT created numerous disparities between  how
his career has unfolded compared  to  his  peers;  and  that  these
disparities   include   financial   concerns,   opportunities   for
promotion, and ADSC considerations, are duly  noted.   Nonetheless,
because of the reasons set forth hereinafter, we do not find  these
contentions, in  and  by  themselves,  sufficiently  compelling  to
conclude that he has been the victim  of  either  an  error  or  an
injustice  to  the  extent  warranting  favorable  action  on   his
requests.  As noted by the Office of Primary Responsibility  (OPR),
the  Air  Force  recognized  that  prior  to  the  [Congressionally
mandated] drawdown,  attending  pilot  training  was  a  reasonable
expectation for a physically qualified  USAFA  graduate.   However,
limited training and absorption  capacity  reduced  the  number  of
graduates that could attend UPT immediately  following  graduation.
As a result, the Air Force’s original decision was to take away the
slots from those candidates who did not rank high enough, based  on
USAFA’s order-of-merit cadet ranking, to qualify for the few  slots
available (commensurate actions were  taken  with  regard  to  ROTC
pilot candidates similarly effected).  After further consideration,
the Air Force Senior Leadership made a conscious decision to  offer
those pilot candidates below the cut line delayed entry  into  UPT,
knowing that this would have  a  domino  effect  on  the  accession
sources (ROTC, USAFA, OTS) by further reducing the UPT  opportunity
for new officers in  subsequent  year  groups.   Offering  deferral
afforded these officers an opportunity  to  fly  in  spite  of  the
numerous challenges facing  the  Air  Force.   Those  officers  who
accepted the deferment option to attend UPT did so voluntarily  and
readily accepted the clearly defined  commitments  associated  with
that decision.

4.  We note, too, that the applicant voluntarily entered  into  UPT
and IQT, completing the programs on 16 August  1996  and  30  March
2000, respectively.   Completion  of  the  latter  flying  training
program extended his UPT ADSC from 15 August 2004 to 29 March 2005.
 However, he voluntarily entered into both flying training programs
rather than opting to separate under the 7-day option program.   He
also signed the  OFFICER  ACTIVE  DUTY  SERVICE  COMMITMENT  (ADSC)
COUNSELING STATEMENTS, AF Forms 63, acknowledging the length of the
ADSCs.  And, only after he completed both flying training programs,
did he choose to raise the issue of unjust  treatment  of  deferred
pilots.

___________________________________________________________________

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 and 8 February 2001, 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 15 May 2000.
    Exhibit B.  Microfiche Copy of Applicant's Master Personnel
                Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 8 August 2000,
                w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAFMIBR, dated 25 August 2000.
      Exhibit E.  Letter from applicant, undated.
      Exhibit F.  Letter from AFBCMR to applicant, dated
                        5 September 2000.
      Exhibit G.  Letter from applicant, dated 7 September 2000.
      Exhibit H.  Letter to applicant, dated 27 September 2000.
      Exhibit I.  Letter from applicant, dated 1 October 2000.
      Exhibit J.  Letter from applicant, dated 1 November 2000.
      Exhibit K.  Letter from applicant, dated 1 November 2000.
      Exhibit L.  Letter from applicant, dated 28 September 2000.
      Exhibit M.  Memorandum for AFBCMR, dated 8 November 2000.
      Exhibit N.  Letter to applicant, dated 14 November 2000.
      Exhibit O.  Letter from applicant, dated 23 November 2000,
                w/atch.




                                   BENEDICT A. KAUSAL, IV
                                   Panel Chair