RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  01-00303
            INDEX NUMBER:  113.04

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His two-year Active Duty Service  Commitment  (ADSC)  incurred  for
using Tuition Assistance (TA) to fund graduate  coursework  at  the
University of Alaska be deleted.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Knowing that he had a six-year ADSC, he took TA to run concurrently
with his Air Force Academy commitment; that  unknown  to  him,  the
applicable Air Force Instruction (AFI 36-2107)  was  re-written  in
June of 2000 stating that the ADSC for service academy graduates is
five years; that sometime during his tour at  Elmendorf,  his  ADSC
changed from six years to five years, but he was never informed  by
his Military Personnel Flight (MPF) that his records were  changed;
and that if he knew his ADSC was five years instead of  six  years,
he wouldn’t have taken TA and  incurred  another  ADSC.   Applicant
advises that he is prepared to reimburse the government for the  TA
received.   His  complete  statement   and   documentary   evidence
submitted in support of his application are included as Attachments
1 through 7 to Exhibit A.
___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Beginning in 1992, the Air Force  programmed  a  six-year  extended
active duty (EAD) ADSC for USAFA cadets graduating during or  after
1996.  This programmed ADSC never took effect and a five-year  ADSC
was subsequently published in the 1 Sep 98 version of AFI 36-2107.

EAD ADSC updates in the Personnel Data System (PDS)  are  automatic
and  all  1996  USAFA  graduates  received  a  six-year  ADSC  upon
graduation.  Because the applicant  graduated  from  the  USAFA  on
29 May 96, he received the six-year ADSC, thereby obligating him to
a period of active duty service through 28 May 2002.

On 30 Sep 97, HQ AFPC performed a mass PDS update reducing the  EAD
ADSCs of 1996 USAFA graduates from six years to  five  years.   The
applicant’s ADSC was subsequently reduced to 28 May 2001.  There is
no evidence of any notification of this reduction to  the  affected
members other than the subsequent revision of AFI 36-2107 on 1  Sep
98.

Applicant used TA to help fund several graduate courses,  the  most
recent of which he completed on 27 Jul 2000.   In  accordance  with
AFI 36-2107, ADSCs and Specified Period of  Time  Contracts,  dated
1 Sep 98 (version in effect at the time member received TA),  Table
1.6, Rule 7, applicant incurred a two-year ADSC  effective  on  the
course completion.  Because TA ADSCs are served  concurrently,  his
longest ADSC for TA usage obligates him through 26 Jul 2002.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPSFO recommends that the application be  disapproved.   It
indicates, in part, that apparently, the applicant did  not  verify
his EAD ADSC between  1996  and  2000  even  though  he  had  ample
opportunity to do so.  It  should  be  noted  that  the  Air  Force
provides a “Notification of Selection for Reassignment” printout to
officers selected for assignment; page six of this  printout  lists
all ADSCs on record.  Thus, the applicant  had  an  opportunity  to
review his ADSCs when notified of his impending  reassignment  from
Ramstein AF to Elmendorf AFB in 1998.  Because this printout is not
a matter of official record and is destroyed after  90  days,  they
cannot provide a copy of the applicant's actual printout from 1998.
 However, they have provided a sample  printout  from  another  Air
Force officer reassigned in 2000 (see Atch 2).

It is Air Force policy that an offer to repay  funds  expended  for
educational expense will not void an ADSC if the member has already
completed the  educational  event.   The  applicant  initialed  and
signed the form indicating his  acknowledgement  and  agreement  of
this and other conditions set forth in the form.  Additionally, AFI
36-2107, dated 1 Sep 98, supports this position by stating,  “there
is no  ‘buy  out’  provision  authorized  from  a  completed  ADSC-
incurring event.”

In closing, HQ AFPC/DPSFO states that lack of notification for  the
changed EAD ADSC, while regrettable, does not negate  the  validity
of the TA ADSC.  It is unreasonable for a member to expect the  Air
Force to allow him to void a valid, mutually agreed upon ADSC based
on a stated intention to never serve beyond a certain date (Exhibit
C with Attachments 1 and 2).

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the advisory opinion was made available to the  applicant
on April 6,  2001,  for  review  and  comment  in  accordance  with
established policy (Exhibit D); however, to date, he has failed  to
respond.
___________________________________________________________________
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.   Applicant  contends
that, knowing that he had a  six-year  ADSC,  he  took  TA  to  run
concurrently with his Air Force Academy commitment; that unknown to
him, the applicable AFI was re-written in June  2000  stating  that
the ADSC for service Academy graduates is five years; that sometime
during his tour at Elmendorf AFB, his ADSC changed from  six  years
to five years, but he was  never  informed  by  his  MPF  that  his
records were changed; and that if he knew his ADSC was  five  years
instead of six years, he would  not  have  taken  TA  and  incurred
another ADSC.  He also states that he’s prepared to  reimburse  the
government for the TA received.  The applicant’s intent to separate
upon  completion  of  the  Academy  ADSC  is  corroborated  by  his
commander for the past two years.

4.  The Air Force recommends denial notwithstanding the failure  to
notify the applicant of the change in his  Academy  ADSC  from  six
years to five years.  It is believed that it is unreasonable for  a
member to expect the Air Force  to  allow  him  to  void  a  valid,
mutually agreed upon ADSC based on  a  stated  intention  to  never
serve beyond a certain date.  They assert that  the  applicant  did
not verify his ADSC between 1996 and 2000 even though he had  ample
opportunity to do so.  In addition, it is Air Force policy that  an
offer to repay funds expended for  educational  expenses  will  not
void an ADSC if the member has already  completed  the  educational
event.  Contrary to the  assertion  made  by  the  Air  Force,  the
applicant states (and we have no reason to question this statement)
that upon graduation from the Academy in 1996 and being informed of
a  six-year  ADSC,  he  received  official  confirmation   of   the
commitment in 1997. Later on, after becoming aware  that  a  former
classmate received a five-year ADSC, he checked  with  his  MPF  in
Germany, but was shown a copy of the applicable AFI, dated  6  July
1994, which still reflected a six-year Academy ADSC.

5.  Since the applicant’s  six-year  Academy  ADSC  was  apparently
officially  confirmed  on  more  than  one  occasion,  it  was  not
unreasonable for him to assume that he had no need to  continuously
verify this particular ADSC.  Moreover,  in  our  view,  given  the
potential impact of such a significant change in ADSC length on  an
officer’s career goals, it  is  incredulous  that  responsible  Air
Force officials would not believe that they had, at least  a  moral
obligation, to ensure that the officers affected be timely notified
of the change.  The fact that this  was  not  done,  in  our  view,
constitutes an egregious injustice warranting corrective action.
___________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the  Air  Force
relating to APPLICANT, be  corrected  to  show  that  the  two-year
Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) he incurred for using Tuition
Assistance (TA) to help fund several  graduate  courses  (the  most
recent of which he completed on 27 July 2000) be declared void; and
that he be permitted to reimburse  the  government  for  the  funds
expended as an exception to Air Force policy.

___________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this  application  in
Executive Session on 29 May 2001, under the provisions of  AFI  36-
2603:

      Mr. Charles E. Bennett, Panel Chair
      Mr. Henry Romo Jr., Member
      Mrs. Barbara A. Westgate, Member

All members voted to correct  the  records,  as  recommended.   The
following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 26 Jan 01, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSFO, dated 28 Mar 01, w/atch.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 6 Apr 01.




                                   CHARLES E. BENNETT

                                   Panel Chair









AFBCMR 01-00303




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 [APPLICANT], be corrected to show that the two-
year Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) he incurred for using
Tuition Assistance (TA) to help fund several graduate courses (the
most recent of which he completed on 27 July 2000) be, and hereby
is, declared void; and that he be permitted to reimburse the
government for the funds expended as an exception to Air Force
policy.
:







       JOE G. LINEBERGER

       Director

       Air Force Review Boards Agency