RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  01-01844
            INDEX CODE:  113.04

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC)  of  Nov  03,  incurred  for
Upgrade Pilot Training (UPT), be removed from her records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She believes the ADSC is unjust due to the fact that she was unable to
complete her commitment because  of  injuries  caused  by  a  Class  A
helicopter accident, resulting in her  medical  disqualification  from
the career field.

In  support  of  her  appeal,  the  applicant  provided  an   expanded
statement, and documentation pertaining to her ADSC.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Personnel Data System  (PDS)  indicates
that the applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of
major, having been promoted to that  grade  on  1 Jan 02.   Her  Total
Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 15 Apr 91.

The remaining  relevant  facts  pertaining  to  this  application  are
contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate office of the Air
Force.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSFO provided an  initial  evaluation  and  recommended  denial.
AFPC/DPSFO noted that the  applicant  graduated  UPT  in  Nov  95  and
incurred an eight-year ADSC in accordance with Air  Force  Instruction
36-2107, Active Duty Service Commitments (ADSC) and  Specified  Period
of Time Contracts (SPTC), Table 1.4, Rule 6, dated  6  Jul  94.   This
ADSC obligated her to serve on active duty  through  9  Nov  03.   The
applicant was also projected to incur an additional five-year ADSC for
completion of M/HH-60G Initial Qualification  Training  to  be  served
concurrently with the UPT commitment in accordance with  AFI  36-2107,
Table 1.5, Rule 1.  This ADSC was later reduced to 2 years based  upon
withdrawal  from  the  course  due  to  medical  disqualification   in
accordance with Table 1.8, Rule 13 of AFI 36-2107.  This is  the  ADSC
that the applicant refers to having been awarded for “being  withdrawn
from the rated career field.”

Following her reassignment to Maxwell AFB in  Aug  97,  the  applicant
requested  removal  of  this  ADSC   based   upon   being   “medically
disqualified” from flying.  After  “several  months”  of  coordination
with the Military Personnel Flight (MPF) and the Air  Force  Personnel
Center (AFPC) and numerous instances of this commitment being  removed
and subsequently reappearing, the applicant was  finally  informed  in
Oct 00 that the ADSC was valid and would remain a matter of record.

According to AFPC/DPSFO, they contacted  a  master  sergeant  formerly
assigned to AFPC regarding this matter.  Although he had  no  specific
recollection of this applicant, he clearly recalled the procedures  in
place for ADSC removal/reduction at the time in question.   He  stated
since the MPFs were directly responsible for  updating  and  verifying
ADSC data, he would only become involved on a case-by-case basis (such
as if the MPF requested assistance).  He also clearly recalls approval
from the  Board  for  Correction  of  Military  Records  as  the  only
authority for removal of an  ADSC  after  completion  of  the  course.
Additionally, they asked him to review the  remarks  he  used  in  the
applicant’s application of a system transaction completed on 20 May 98
for the reason “Member previously eliminated from flying training, UPT
ADSC is removed.” Since the  applicant  graduated  from  UPT,  he  was
convinced that he would not have used this  verbiage  unless  the  MPF
mistakenly provided him incorrect course information.   The  applicant
is asking the Board to weigh in the incorrect advice  and  information
received from AFPC in its decision.  AFPC/DPSFO believes it is equally
important to reiterate this information  was  provided  more  than  36
months after the member was correctly counseled and accepted the eight-
year ADSC associated with completion of UPT.

AFPC/DPSFO indicated that the applicant stated the  medical  condition
she suffered as a consequence of the mishap no longer afforded her the
opportunity to fulfill the ADSC in the capacity it was meant,  “as  an
Air Force Pilot.”  Although there are usually Air Force Specialty Code
(AFSC) utilization  periods  associated  with  specific  training  and
education, Air Force members are not specifically tied to  a  training
specialty or  AFSC  while  completing  their  ADSC.   There  are  many
instances when Air Force members are retrained  or  reclassified  from
specialties after they have been trained.   However,  they  are  still
expected to serve the appropriate term of active service to ensure the
Air Force and the taxpayers receive an appropriate  return  for  their
investment in training and education.

Finally AFPC/DPSFO indicated that AFPC/CC personally  interviewed  the
applicant regarding  her  situation  and  he  wanted  to  include  his
personal comments: “After personal discussion with Major J--- P---,  I
have come to the following conclusion.  She said that  she  knows  and
understands that she incurred an ADSC from pilot  training.   However,
there are  two  factors  she  wanted  to  be  considered.   First  and
foremost, after receiving injuries caused during a  Class  A  accident
that grounded her, she was not given rated duties.   Second,  she  was
presented information by her  MPF  and  AFPC  ADSC  experts  that  her
commitment would be reduced to a two-year period. Bottom-line, Major P-
-- was correctly counseled prior to pilot training and was fully aware
that she incurred an 8-year ADSC.”

In AFPC/DPSFO’s view, the ADSC was justly  and  appropriately  applied
upon the award of the applicant’s aeronautical rating  (Pilot)  on  10
Nov  95,  and  that  the  applicant  has   not   provided   sufficient
justification to support her request.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSFO evaluation is at Exhibit B.

AFPC/DPSFO provided a subsequent evaluation and  indicated  that  they
originally  submitted  the  applicant’s  package  in  Nov  01  with  a
disapproval recommendation.  However, they requested that the  package
be returned to AFPC (before the Board made an  official  decision)  to
further review the package.   Based  upon  further  discussions,  they
concluded that technically they were correct (requesting disapproval),
however, they felt that the applicant’s case was  unique  because  the
MPF and AFPC ADSC experts repeatedly provided inaccurate  information.
After re-addressing this issue to AFPC/CC, they have  determined  that
their original disapproval recommendation was appropriate as discussed
in the technical advisory.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSFO evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In her response, the applicant indicated that the  original  ADSC  was
correctly applied.  She earned an eight-year ADSC for completing  UPT.
However,  when  the  circumstances  changed  and  she  was  no  longer
medically qualified  to  fly,  the  ADSC  should  have  been  adjusted
accordingly.  She depended on the advice of the experts at  the  local
MPF and AFPC to ensure this was accomplished.  If she had been advised
correctly, she would have submitted this request in 1997 when she  was
medically grounded  from  flying.   The  ADSC  was  not  “incorrectly”
applied.  It was unjustly applied.

The applicant respectfully requests that the Board look  at  the  full
facts of her case.  She wanted to be an Air Force pilot since she  was
in high school, and she earned her opportunity  to  do  so.   However,
through no fault of her own, her flying career was cut short.  She has
served the Air Force for three assignments and  six  years  after  her
accident, not because she was forced to,  based  upon  her  ADSC,  but
because she wanted to.  However, to hold her to a  commitment  because
she received training that she can no longer utilize in the Air  Force
nor in the civilian community is unjust.

Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, 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 not  timely  filed;  however,  it  is  in  the
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the  existence  of  probable  error  or  injustice.   The  applicant's
complete submission was thoroughly reviewed and her  contentions  were
duly noted.  However, we do not find the applicant’s assertions or the
documentation  submitted  in  support  of  her   appeal   sufficiently
persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force  office
of primary responsibility (OPR).  Therefore, in the absence of  clear-
cut evidence that the applicant’s eight-year ADSC  for  completion  of
UPT was erroneous, she was treated differently than  others  similarly
situated, or that she relied on  the  improper  advice  regarding  the
removal of the ADSC from her records to her detriment, we  agree  with
the recommendation of the OPR and adopt their rationale as  the  basis
for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain  her  burden
of establishing that she has suffered either an error or an injustice.
 Accordingly, we find no compelling basis to  recommend  granting  the
relief sought in this 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   not   considered   with   this
application.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number 01-
01844 in Executive Session on 6 Mar 02, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:

      Mr. Frederick R. Beaman III, Panel Chair
      Mr. James W. Russell III, Member
      Ms. Marcia Jane Bachman, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 3 Jul 01, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPSFO, dated 24 Jan 02.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSFO, dated 24 Jan 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Jan 02.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, applicant, dated 6 Feb 02.




                                   FREDERICK R. BEAMAN III
                                   Panel Chair