RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-01622
                                       INDEX CODE:  115.02
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX                  COUNSEL: NO

      XXXXXXXXXXXX                           HEARING DESIRED:  NO


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  17 November 2006


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) of 10 June 2007 be waived.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His request for separation was disapproved even though the Air  Force  Board
for Corrections of Military Records  (AFBCMR)  rescinded  his  Undergraduate
Pilot Training (UPT)-incurred Active Duty Service Commitment  (ADSC)  of  18
October 2011 and the Record of Proceedings (AFBCMR Document Number  BC-2004-
02126) stated that ACC/DOT would not hold him to  his  10  June  2007  ADSC.
The Air Force Personnel Center Separations  Branch  will  not  consider  his
request for separation until his ADSC is removed from the system.

In support of his application, he provides copies of his separation  request
and documentation from  his  AFBCMR  Case  BC-2004-02126.   The  applicant’s
complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

According to the military personnel data system, the applicant is  currently
serving on active duty with a Total Active Federal Military Service Date  of
1 February 1996 and an ADSC of 10 June 2007.  His current grade  is  captain
with an effective date  and  a  date  of  rank  of  17  January  2000.   The
applicant holds  an  aeronautical  rating  of  navigator  with  an  Aviation
Service Date of 25 March 1996.

The applicant entered A-10 Initial Qualification Training on 15 March  2002.
 According to his Education/Training Report, dated  28  November  2002,  the
applicant was eliminated for flying deficiency prior to  his  completion  of
the 20-week course.  A Flying Evaluation  Board  (FEB)  was  convened  25-27
November 2002, to consider evidence concerning the applicant’s  professional
qualification for aviation service, evaluate his potential for future  rated
duties, and to make recommendations regarding his future  flying  duties  to
higher authorities.  The FEB found:

      1.  The applicant had not previously met an FEB.


      2.  The   applicant   had   not   previously    requested    voluntary
disqualification from aviation service.


      3.  The applicant had failed to meet flying standards  while  enrolled
in a formal flying training course by exhibiting dangerously low  levels  of
situational awareness at  various  times  throughout  the  training  course,
affecting his weapons  delivery,  adherence  to  training  rules,  judgment,
flight discipline, and safety.


      4.  The applicant failed to meet flying standards while enrolled in  a
formal flying training course by flying the maximum allowable  number  of  X
sorties  due  to  student  non-progression  in  the   A-10   Pilot   Initial
Qualification Course.


      5.  The applicant demonstrated a general lack of knowledge during  the
training  course  in   areas   including   systems   operations,   emergency
procedures, and the local airspace.


      6.  The applicant lied to his instructor during  an  SA-5  sortie  and
during the subsequent debrief about one switch error that  he  committed  on
Range 3.  He confessed to his error the following day and testified  to  the
FEB that he regretted the serious lapse in judgment and never did it  again.



      7.  The applicant did not possess the  requisite  aviation  skills  to
transition into a multi-place non-fighter aircraft as a pilot.


      8.  The applicant  would  require  continuous  additional  supervision
throughout his flying training if he were to remain qualified  for  aviation
service.


Wing, Numbered Air Force, and Major Command level legal  reviews  found  the
findings and recommendations of the FEB to be  legally  sufficient.   On  11
August 2003, after wing (convening authority) and Numbered Air  Force  (NAF)
concurrence with the  FEB  recommendations,  the  Commander  of  Air  Combat
Command  (COMACC),  (decision  authority),   directed   the   applicant   be
disqualified from continued aviation service as a pilot, be allowed to  wear
the aviation pilot wings, and remain qualified for  aviation  service  as  a
navigator.

The applicant appealed to the AFBCMR for reinstatement of his  pilot  rating
and reassignment to a non-fighter multi-place aircraft readiness  unit.   As
an alternative, if the Board was unable to reinstate  him  as  a  pilot,  he
asked that his ADSC of 18 October 2011  for  attending  Undergraduate  Pilot
Training, his ADSC of 10 June 2007 for attending  Advanced  Flying  Training
(AFT), and his ADSC of 13 February 2005 for his Permanent Change of  Station
be rescinded so he may return back home to Puerto  Rico  and  start  another
career outside the Air Force

The AFBCMR considered and partially granted the  applicant’s  request  on  9
February 2005 by voting to void the applicant’s ADSC  of  18  October  2011.
Per a discussion between the AFBCMR Examiner and ACC/DOT,  DOT  stated  they
would not hold  the  applicant  to  his  ADSC  for  attending  A-10  Initial
Qualification Training due to the fact that he  was  eliminated  for  flying
deficiency prior to his completion of the  20-week  course.   However,  upon
his course elimination, the applicant was reclassified  and  completed  AFT,
EC-130H Compass Call (Navigator) on 11 June 2004 incurring  an  ADSC  of  10
June 2007.  ACC/DOT does not concur with releasing the  applicant  from  his
ADSC resulting from his Navigator training.

On 6 April 2005, the applicant submitted a waiver request for  a  separation
date of 12 August 2005 based on the AFBCMR decision waiving his  18  October
2011 ADSC and the comments in the Record of Proceedings that  ACC/DOT  would
not hold him to his 10 June 2007 ADSC.  On 29 June 2005,  the  Secretary  of
the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) denied the applicant’s request.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPF recommends denying the applicant’s request for  waiver  of  his  10
June 2007 ADSC.  DPF states that in spite  of  the  statement  that  ACC/DOT
would not hold him to his ADSC, the overall  recommendation  of  the  AFBCMR
only granted relief of his 18 October 2011 ADSC for his completion  of  UPT.
The AFBCMR did not remove his 10 June 2007 ADSC for completion of  AFT.   It
is  DPF’s  opinion  that  the   applicant   did   not   provide   sufficient
justification to support his request.  The DPF evaluation is at Exhibit C.

SAFPC recommends the applicant’s request be denied.  SAFPC  states  that  in
spite of a recommendation of approval from his unit chain  of  command,  the
AFPC functional assignments and separations office  recommends  disapproval,
citing undermanning in the applicant’s  crew  position,  Electronic  Warfare
Officer (EWO).  The applicant’s statement that ACC/DOT would  not  hold  him
to the 10 June 2007 ADSC is neither binding nor valid, in that  ACC/DOT  has
no authority to waive ADSCs; and in light of the unit manning, granting  the
applicant’s request would not be in the best interest of the Air Force.   It
is SAFPC’s  opinion  that  since  they  acted  on  the  applicant’s  request
subsequent to and with full knowledge of his 12 May 2005 application to  the
AFBCMR, and the basis for his application contained  therein,  no  error  or
injustice exists.  The SAFPC evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In his letter dated 3 August 2005, the applicant  states  that  he  did  not
voluntarily want to return to the rated navigator field.   Any  organization
that coerces  a  member  to  enter  a  contract  (in  this  case  additional
training) under duress should know that  action  alone  renders  a  contract
invalid.  Besides, he is not checked out on  the  EC-130H  aircraft  as  the
AFPC/DPF advisory opinion letter states; therefore, the ADSC for  graduating
from AFT is in error.

Since he has been steered once again to the AFBCMR, he offers the option  to
reconsider reinstating his pilot rating so he may  serve  in  a  multi-place
heavy and/or unmanned aircraft.  Assuming the Board is unable  to  favorably
re-consider the option to allow him to rejoin the rated pilot  force,  based
on the assignment actions forced upon him under duress  and  the  precedence
set forth by the previous findings of the AFBCMR,  rescinding  his  10  June
2007 ADSC is not only the right thing to do, but at this  point  it  is  the
humane and  ethical  thing  to  do.   Three  years  of  becoming  intimately
familiar with the intricacies of the system should be enough for anyone.

In the applicant’s letter dated 17  November  2005,  he  states  that  since
SAFPC denied his separation request, he had to complete the EC-130H  Mission
Crew Commander (MCC) syllabus.  He completed the  MCC  syllabus  because  he
was coerced under duress by AFPC to take this  assignment  or  face  another
FEB.

On 21 March 2006, in response to the SAFPC evaluation, the applicant  states
that SAFPC denied his request for separation citing undermanning of the  EWO
crew position.  While such alleged undermanning is truly disheartening,  the
failure of the Air Force Manpower and  Personnel  staff  to  keep  a  higher
level of EWOs in the USAF should not be considered in his case since  he  is
not requesting relief but rather a correction of an injustice.   He  entered
into the military service and trained as a  navigator  only  as  a  stepping
stone to becoming a military pilot.  Not only  has  he  already  served  his
full navigator (EWO) ADSC which expired in December 2002 but,  he  also  did
not accept the substantial  $75K  navigator  incentive  bonus  when  it  was
offered to him last year.  Since his original requested separation date  has
already passed, this case has now evolved and requires his ADSC of  10  June
2007 be declared void by the Board.  As many in the  current  administration
have  promulgated,  the  Air  Force,  along  with  all  the  other  military
branches, is an all-volunteer force.  Since his pilot rating was voided  and
he has exhausted all venues afforded to him via Air  Force  instructions  to
reinstate his pilot rating, he has  been  serving  in  the  Air  Force  non-
voluntarily.

If the Board is unable  to  reinstate  his  pilot  rating,  he  respectfully
requests his ADSC of  10  June  2007  be  voided  so  he  can  finalize  his
separation from  the  Air  Force  without  further  delay.   He  welcomes  a
personal or teleconference appearance to the Board’s session  if  necessary.
The applicant’s rebuttal, 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 timely filed.

3.  Sufficient relevant evidence has  been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of an injustice in regards to his request to relieve him  of  his
ADSC of 10 June 2007.  We note the previous Board’s decision  to  void  the
applicant’s ADSC of 18 October 2011 and believe their decision was based on
the belief that the applicant would also be released from his  ADSC  of  10
June 2007.  Additionally, it appears that the applicant  and  ACC/DOT  were
under the impression he would not be held to his ADSC of 10 June 2007.   We
note the applicant has served the Air Force well since  his  completion  of
AFT, EC-130H Compass Call (Navigator) and that he chose not to  accept  the
$75K navigator incentive bonus when it was offered to him  last  year.   In
regards to the applicant’s alternate request to  be  returned  to  a  pilot
position, we concur with the  previous  Board’s  decision  to  not  disturb
ACC/DOT’s findings without strong  evidence  by  the  applicant  indicating
their decision represents an abuse of discretionary authority  or  that  it
was contrary to the best interests of the Air Force and the individual.  In
view of the above, it is  our  opinion  that  the  applicant’s  records  be
corrected as indicated below.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been  shown
that a personal appearance with or without counsel will  materially  add  to
our understanding of the issues involved.   Therefore,  the  request  for  a
hearing is not favorably considered.

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air  Force  relating
to APPLICANT be corrected to show that his Active  Duty  Service  Commitment
(ADSC) of 10 June 2007, incurred as a result of his  completion  of  AFT  be
declared void.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in  Executive
Session on 20 April 2006, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

            Mr. Michael J. Maglio, Panel Chair
            Ms. Debra Walker, Member
            Mr. Elwood C. Lewis III, Member

All members voted to correct the records,  as  recommended.   The  following
documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket  Number
BC-2005-01622:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 May 05, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPF, dated 25 Jul 05.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, SAFPC, dated 7 Mar 06, w/atchs.
      Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Jul 05.
      Exhibit F.  Applicant’s Rebuttals, dated 3 Aug 05, 17 Nov 05
                  and 21 Mar 06.




                             MICHAEL J. MAGLIO
                                             Panel Chair


AFBCMR BC-2005-01622




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 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, be corrected to show that his
Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) of 10 June 2007, incurred as a result
of his completion of Advanced Flying Training (AFT) be, and hereby is,
declared void.





JOE G. LINEBERGER

Director

Air Force Review Boards Agency