RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  00-01931

            INDEX NUMBER:  113.04

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He receive a reduction of the Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC)
he incurred for completion of Advanced Flying Training (AFT).

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS, IN ESSENCE, THAT:

The Air Force did not hold up to their  contract  on  more  than  a
couple of occasions; that he was willing to  accept  the  five-year
commitment for AFT during his assignment to XXXX, but  was  denied;
and that after the new changes to the ADSCs, his ADSC is unfair and
not in spirit with the new policy.

Applicant’s complete statement and a  copy  of  the  OFFICER/AIRMAN
ACTIVE DUTY SERVICE COMMITMENT (ADSC) ACKNOWLEDGMENT STATEMENT,  AF
FORM 63, indicating that he would incur a five-year ADSC  from  the
date he  completed  C141  ACIQ  are  included  as  Exhibit  A  with
Attachment 1.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant  incurred  an   eight-year   ADSC   for   completion   of
undergraduate pilot training (UPT), which obligates him  to  active
duty service through 6 April 2002.  He incurred an additional five-
year ADSC for completion of C-141B Initial  Qualification  Training
(IQT) in accordance with Table 1.5, Rule 1 of AFI 36-2107, dated  1
Sep 98 (version in effect at the time he accepted  training).   The
IQT ADSC obligates him to active duty service through 15 Jan 2004.
___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSFO  recommends  that  the  application   be   denied.    It
indicates, in part, that the applicant  claims  he  requested  (and
subsequently was denied) to attend C-141B  IQT  after  having  been
assigned to XXXX AFB for just 1.5 years in order to  “prevent  from
extending [his] ADSC.”  If applicant had been allowed to attend  C-
141B IQT at this point in  his  career  (Feb  98),  he  would  have
approximately four years and two months left of his UPT ADSC.    He
would still incur a five-year IQT ADSC upon completion of  training
and would still owe an additional  commitment  beyond  his  initial
eight-year UPT ADSC.

The applicant believes the delay in being assigned  to  the  C-141B
has resulted in an unjust ADSC.  Although they are unable to verify
the facts presented as related  to  the  sequence  of  events  that
resulted in his delayed entry to the  C-141B,  the  applicant  does
acknowledge acceptance of the five-year ADSC for C-141 IQT on 9 Oct
98.  Even though the  applicant  may  have  been  delayed  in  this
crossflow action, it should be noted that he voluntarily  requested
and accepted the training at this later date (9 Oct 98).

Applicant states that the Air Force  “did  not  hold  up  to  their
contract on more than  a  couple  of  occasions”  but  provides  no
specific evidence to validate the existence of a “contract” to  fly
the C-141B following UPT or his operational support aircraft (C-26A
and C-21A).

AFI 36-2107 was revised on 1 Jun 00 and the ADSC  for  AFT  courses
was reduced to three years.  There was no  retroactive  application
of the new ADSCs  to  members  who  were  correctly  counseled  and
properly accepted ADSCs prior to 1 Jun 00 (Exhibit C).

__________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant continues to reiterate that since the 1 Jun 00 version of
AFI 36-2107 changed the ADSC for AFT courses, his  ADSC  is  unfair
and not in spirit with the new policy.  He believes  the  following
sequence of events will familiarize  the  Board  with  the  factors
leading to the error.  He graduated from UPT at XXXX AFB on  6  Apr
94.  Upon graduation, he incurred an 8-year ADSC (6 Apr 02) and was
assigned to XXXX XXXX ARB to fly the C-26A.   After  completion  of
the 3-year C-26 assignment, he was obliged to fly the  C-141B,  his
follow-on assignment locked in by his  original  flying  assignment
from UPT.  However, the 3-year  C-26A  assignment  was  interrupted
when funding for the aircraft was lost only  15  months  after  his
arrival  to  the  station  and  the   aircraft   was   subsequently
decommissioned  in  Sep  95.   In  the   month   leading   to   the
decommissioning of the C-26A,  Military  Personnel  Command  issued
orders for him to report to Travis AFB to fly the C-141B.   He  was
obligated to fly the C-141B following the C-26A  per  his  original
UPT assignment.  In Sep 95, he  received  a  phone  call  from  MPC
advising him that his training for the C-141B had been revoked  due
to the large influx of banked pilots  returning  to  flying.   They
immediately reissued orders to report to XXXX AFB to fly the C-21A,
where he incurred a 3-year ADSC  (Nov  98).   MPC  still  held  the
position that he was still obligated to fly the C-141B after the C-
21A per his UPT assignment  However, in Mar 97  after  only  flying
the C-21A 18 months, he requested to be reassigned  to  the  C-141B
immediately in order to avoid  extending  his  ADSC.   He  had  the
approval of his C-21A commander for the reassignment, but officials
at AFPC denied his request.  The officials at  MPC  argued  he  was
required to meet an assignment board, after 3 years of flying the C-
21A, before they would issue orders to the C-141B, even  though  he
had flown Operational Support Aircraft (0SA) for 3 years.   In  Oct
98, after approximately 3  years  flying  the  C-21A,  he  received
orders to report to XXXX AFB to fly the C-141.  However, in Aug 98,
 he attempted to find an assignment which would  prevent  extending
his ADSC.  However, at the time all 3-year flying  assignments,  to
include being an instructor for UPT,  required  the  individual  to
have a Major Weapon System (MWS) background.  In addition, all  MWS
assignments incurred a 5-year ADSC.  He was locked into the  C-141B
assignment and had no choice but to incur the additional ADSC.   He
graduated from Advanced Flying Training for the C-141B  in  January
99, extending his original UPT commitment from 6 Apr 02 to  15  Jan
04.

Applicant points out  the  author  of  the  advisory  opinion  made
several errors in his advisory opinion.  He  also  states  that  he
never  voluntarily  requested  to  be  assigned   to   the   C-141B
notwithstanding the assertion by the author of the advisory opinion
to the contrary.

In closing, applicant  advises  that  another  pilot  attended  the
course with him and only incurred three years of ADSC,  as  opposed
to his five years, for exactly the same training.  He  also  argues
that when interviewed by the AFPC commander, he asked  him  “why  I
hadn’t requested to take the C-141B training for  less  ADSC.”   He
asks the Board to find where this  right  to  members  is  written.
Never in his career has he been advised that he had the right to do
this.  Had he been so advised, he would obviously have  taken  this
course of action (Exhibit E).

___________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The author of the advisory opinion  concedes  that  he  incorrectly
calculated applicant’s time on station when he made  the  following
statement:  “If member had been allowed to  attend  C-141B  IQT  at
this point in his career (Feb 98), he would have approximately four
years and two months left of his UPT  ADSC.”   In  fact,  applicant
arrived at XXXX AFB on 13 Oct 95; one year and  a  half  from  this
date is 12 Apr 97,  not  “Feb  98”  as  previously  stated  in  his
advisory.  Thus, if applicant had been allowed to attend C-141B IQT
at this point in his career (12 Apr 97),  his  five-year  IQT  ADSC
would still have extended beyond his original UPT ADSC of 6 Apr 02,
but only by  a  few  months  (dependent  upon  the  length  of  the
training).

Applicant believes he was  wrong  when  he  stated  that  applicant
“voluntarily requested and accepted  the  [C-141B]  training.”   He
based his statement on the AF Form 3849 applicant signed on 15  May
98 (see Atch 1) in which he lists his next assignment preference as
being a C-141 assignment and states he is “eager to fly  the  C-141
at the earliest possible opportunity…send me to the first available
training opportunity.”  (Note:  This form is  part  of  applicant’s
assignment records at AFPC and was used by  AFPC  when  determining
his follow-on assignment from XXXX AFB.)

Finally, applicant believes  he  was  mistaken  when  he  said  the
applicant “provides no specific evidence to validate the  existence
of a ‘contract’ to fly the C-141B following UPT or his  operational
support aircraft.”  He made this statement in  direct  rebuttal  to
applicant’s  original  statement   (contained   in   his   original
application) that the Air Force “did not hold up to their  contract
on more than a couple of occasions” (emphasis added).   His  office
was unable to verify the existence of any such  contract  requiring
applicant to fly the C-141 immediately following UPT.

They are told by the AFPC rated assignment office that prior to UPT
completion, applicant opted to  fly  Operational  Support  Aircraft
(OSA) for three years with a guaranteed follow-on assignment to fly
the C-141.  Applicant believes the continual delays in allowing him
to fly the C-141 were unfair.  While it  is  unfortunate  that  his
initial three-year C-26 assignment was interrupted  after  only  15
months (due to decommissioning of the aircraft), they can  find  no
evidence that applicant was singled out for unfair  treatment  when
AFPC sent him to a C-21 assignment next instead of a C-141.   After
all, C-141 training  is  planned  well  in  advance  and  applicant
understood up front that he would fly OSA for  three  years  before
going to the C-141.  Applicant admits in his 24 Nov  00  memorandum
that AFPC advised him the large influx of banked  pilots  prevented
his immediate assignment to the C-141 after  his  C-26  assignment.
Thus, he was subsequently directed to fly C-21 aircraft  for  three
additional years.

While it is true  that  applicant  spent  approximately  4.5  years
flying OSA instead of  three  years  (as  originally  planned),  it
should be noted that applicant was under no contractual  obligation
to stay on  active  duty  beyond  his  original  8-year  UPT  ADSC.
Rather, upon notification of training, he could have  requested  to
decline  the  five-year  ADSC  associated  with  C-141B   IQT   (in
accordance with the “7-day option” procedures prescribed in AFI 36-
2110) and establish a date of separation effective upon  completion
of his 8-year UPT ADSC.  He did not do so.  In fact, he  signed  an
AF Form 63 accepting the additional 5-year ADSC which is  currently
reflected correctly in the Personnel Data System as 15 Jan 04.

Applicant stands firm on his  conviction  that  he  should  not  be
required to serve his ADSC beyond his original UPT ADSC of 6 Apr 02
and mentions the name of another Air Force officer who was  in  the
same training course but who only received a three-year  ADSC.   He
has  confirmed  that  this  other  officer’s  three-year  ADSC   is
inaccurate and has taken steps to correct this ADSC  in  accordance
with the ADSC rules  in  effect  at  the  time:  a  five-year  ADSC
effective upon  completion  of  training,  which  is  the  same  as
applicant’s ADSC.

As for applicant’s assertion that his ADSC is unfair  and  “not  in
the spirit with the new policy” effected by the 1 Jun 00 version of
AFI 36-2107, he can only offer the following.  The Secretary of the
Air Force made a conscious decision not to retroactively apply  the
new ADSC rules to members whose ADSC  was  prescribed  by  the  old
rules provided those members were properly counseled of their ADSC.
 It is their belief that applicant was, in fact, properly counseled
of his five-year C-141 IQT ADSC and  therefore,  does  not  warrant
retroactive application of a three-year ADSC effected by new  rules
established more than a year after applicant completed training.

In conclusion, HQ AFPC/DPSPO advises that  applicant  is  currently
scheduled to begin initial qualification training for the  C-17  on
5 Feb 01.  Upon completion of this training on 16 May 01,  he  will
incur an additional three-year ADSC obligating him through  15  May
04 (Exhibit F with Attachments).

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states, in part, that first, he would like to address the
lack of any contract to fly the C-141B immediately  following  UPT.
At no time did he claim the existence  of  such  a  contract.   His
initial assignment from UPT was to fly Operational Support Aircraft
(OSA) with a follow-on assignment to fly the C-141B.  This has been
re-affirmed  through  the  advisory  writer  by  the   AFPC   rated
assignment office.  This was not a guarantee to fly the C-141B,  as
mentioned by the advisory author.  From the start, he was obligated
to fly the C-141B following his  three-year  OSA  tour.   In  fact,
prior to the decommissioning of the C-26A, he inquired through  his
functional  manager,  the  possibility  of  receiving  training  on
another major weapon system (MWS).  This was  in  response  to  MPC
revoking his orders to attend C-141B training in September 96.  The
functional manager argued that he was “locked in” to the C-141B due
to his initial UPT assignment.  Moreover, on subsequent phone calls
to him and other functional managers, they adamantly  contended  he
did not have any other options due to the  ranking  and  assignment
structure of UPT.   In  their  opinion,  it  would  be  unfair  and
impossible to allow him to fly a different MWS other  than  the  C-
141B.

He does affirm the existence of a contract following UPT to fly OSA
for 3 years followed by the C-141B.  In fact, the  advisory  writer
admits to this contract.  He states in his memorandum for the Board
dated 3 Jan 01, upon UPT completion he “opted  to  fly  Operational
Support Aircraft (OSA) for three years with a guaranteed assignment
to fly the C-141.”  In his  own  words  he  also  admits  he  spent
“approximately  4.5  years  flying  OSA  instead  of  3  years  (as
originally planned).”  The Air Force broke their contract when they
revoked his C-141B training in Sep 96.  In Feb 98, he attempted  to
complete his three-year OSA tour and transition to the C-141B,  but
MPC denied every request to do so.   Again,  he  contends  the  Air
Force did not preserve the original contract at the  completion  of
UPT.

Applicant  further  states  that  it  has  also  been  asserted  he
“voluntarily requested and accepted  the  C-141  training”  at  the
completion of 3 years flying the C-21A at XXXX AFB.  This is  based
on his statement  on  the  AF  Form  3849  dated  15  May  98.   He
vehemently insists this  is  not  an  accurate  statement.   He  is
unsettled with the notion that he had  other  options.   There  was
absolutely no other assignment available to him.  He could not take
a flying assignment that would have held him to a three-year  ADSC,
due to the requirement of a MWS background.  All other  assignments
required a 5-year ADSC.  At the time he signed the AF Form 3849, he
was resigned to the certainty of no available options.   Therefore,
in order to prevent extending his ADSC farther  past  his  original
UPT ADSC, he decided to fill out the AF Form 3849 in such a  manner
as to prevent further delay.  He  would  like  to  note  that  each
individual is required to complete an AF Form 3849.   Also,  please
observe no other aircraft is listed on the AF Form  3849.   He  was
instructed of the impossibility for other options.

In conclusion, applicant states that he believes the  Secretary  of
the Air Force formed the AFBCMR in order to consider cases such  as
his.  In fact, he  cannot  think  of  a  package  more  suited  for
approval than his own.  First,  another  individual  in  his  class
received a dissimilar ADSC for exactly the same training, which the
advisory author openly admits.  Second, due to no fault of his own,
he was delayed in his transition to the C-141 per his original  UPT
assignment.  Had the Air Force followed through with  the  original
contract and allowed him to attend C-141  training  after  3  years
flying OSA, he would have no obligation to remain  on  active  duty
beyond his original 8 years ADSC for UPT.  Instead, by denying  his
right to complete three years of OSA and transition to the  C-141B,
they sealed his fate and forced him to extend his ADSC.   Yet,  the
author of the advisory insists he has not  been  singled  out,  nor
been treated unfairly (Exhibit H)

___________________________________________________________________

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.
Applicant’s contentions, in essence, that the  Air  Force  did  not
hold up to their contract on more than a couple of occasions;  that
he was willing to accept the five-year commitment  for  AFT  during
his assignment to XXXX, but was denied;  and  that  after  the  new
changes to the ADSCs, his ADSC is unfair and not in spirit with the
new policy,  are  duly  noted.   However,  we  do  not  find  these
uncorroborated  assertions,  in  and  by  themselves,  sufficiently
persuasive to override the rationale provided  by  the  Air  Force.
Therefore, we agree with the recommendation of the  Air  Force  and
adopt its  rationale  as  the  basis  for  our  decision  that  the
applicant has not been a victim of either an error or an injustice.
 It is clear that the applicant did not  attend  the  Major  Weapon
System (MWS) training in the C-141 during  the  timeframe  he  most
likely anticipated  based  on  his  agreement  to  fly  Operational
Support  Aircraft  (OSA)  in  the  C-26  for  three  years  with  a
guaranteed follow-on assignment to fly the C-141.  Nonetheless,  as
noted by the Air Force, while it is unfortunate  that  his  initial
three-year C-26 assignment was interrupted  after  only  15  months
(due to decommissioning of the aircraft), there is no evidence that
he was singled out for unfair treatment when AFPC sent him to a  C-
21 assignment next  instead  of  a  C-141.   As  noted,  all  C-141
training is planned well in advance  and  applicant  understood  up
front that he would fly OSA for three years before going to the  C-
141.  He was also advised that the large influx  of  banked  pilots
prevented his immediate assignment to  the  C-141  after  his  C-26
assignment.  While the delayed entry into the C-141 training caused
him to spend approximately 4.5 years flying OSA  instead  of  three
years as originally planned, he was under no  regulatory  or  legal
obligation to stay on active duty beyond his  original  8-year  UPT
ADSC.  Rather, upon notification of his deferred assignment to  the
C-141, he could have declined the flying training and  avoided  the
five-year ADSC by electing  to  separate  under  the  7-day  option
policy upon completion of his 8-year UPT ADSC.  The  fact  that  he
did not do so indicates he believed the 5-year C-141 ADSC  was  the
most viable option notwithstanding the fact that it would cause him
to remain on active duty beyond his  UPT  ADSC.   In  view  of  the
foregoing and in the absence of a signed  agreement  that  required
the applicant to fly the C-141 immediately following UPT,  approval
of his request would  be  grossly  unfair  to  the  other  officers
similarly situated.

___________________________________________________________________

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 19 January 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 12 Jul 00, w/atch.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSFO, dated 12 Oct 00.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 27 Oct 00.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 24 Nov 00.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, AFPC/DPSFO, dated 3 Jan 01, w/atchs.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 4 Jan 01.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, Applicant, dated 4 Jan 01, w/atch.




                                   BENEDICT A. KAUSAL IV
                                   Panel Chair