2.  The applicant requests that his initial contract obligation as an aviation warrant officer be corrected to reflect 5 years instead of 6 years as it currently states.  He contends that his recruiter told him that, upon successful completion of the Warrant Officer Flight Training (WOFT) program, he would incur a 5 year active duty commitment.  In the final phase of his WOFT program in August 1992, he was informed that the active duty obligation would be 6 years and he was coerced into signing DA Form 160, Application for Active Duty, obligating him to 6 years.

3.  The applicant is a Chief Warrant Officer 2 (CW2) serving as a helicopter pilot at Fort Bragg, North Carolina.  On 11 July 1991, he enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) for 3 years for the express purpose of attending WOFT in order to become a helicopter pilot.  In conjunction with his 3 year enlistment, he signed DA Form 3286-65, Statement for Enlistment--United States Army Officer Enlistment Program, in which he acknowledged that, “upon appointment as a Warrant Officer, I WILL BE REQUIRED TO SERVE ON ACTIVE DUTY FOR NOT LESS THAN SIXTY (60) MONTHS unless sooner released by proper authority.”  When he asked what “not less than 60 months” meant, his recruiter told him that it meant that the Army could hold him for a longer period if there was a national emergency or some other problem, but, in reality, it simply meant 5 years of active duty service as repayment for the training.  With that explanation, the applicant enlisted.

4.  On 15 August 1992, the applicant was in the final phase of WOFT at Fort Rucker, Alabama.  In preparation for his appointment as a Warrant Officer, he was presented with DA Form 160, Application for Active Duty.  Block 9 of that form showed his active duty commitment as 6 years upon appointment as a Warrant Officer.  The applicant refused to sign the form, sought clarification, and was told by his company commander that the commitment was 6 years and was directed to sign the form.  When he refused, the company commander tried to persuade him by telling him that all of his classmates were in the same situation, but none had refused to sign.

5.  Following his meeting with the company commander, the applicant was directed to the Student Personnel Office where he was shown a copy of DA message RUEAHOF6028, dated February 1990, which effectively changed the active duty service obligation in Army Regulation (AR) 350-100 from 5 years to 6 years for all persons who attend initial entry rotary wing flight training on or after 30 September 1990.  The applicant continued to refuse to sign the DA Form 160 and sought legal assistance from the Staff Judge Advocate at Fort Rucker.  He met with a legal assistance officer on 3 September 1992.  He contends that the legal assistance officer initially agreed with him that the Army could not change his active duty service obligation.  Later, he states that the legal assistance officer changed his mind and said that the Army could change the service obligation.  Finally, under increasing pressure from his company commander to sign the form or be eliminated from the WOFT program and forfeit his appointment as an aviation Warrant Officer, he relented and signed the document on 11 September 1992.  The legal assistance officer provided the applicant with a Memorandum For Record, dated 7 October 1992, which basically verified the above version of events without discussing the advice given the applicant.

6.  In the processing of this case, a staff advisory opinion was obtained from the Total Army Personnel Command (TAPC-OPW-D).  It contains no information, advice or recommendation which would constitute a basis for granting the relief requested.  The opinion states that AR 350-100 was changed by message in February 1990 to increase the active duty service obligation for applicants for WOFT from 5 years to 6 years for all who attend such training on or after 30 September 1990.

7.  Army Regulation 350-100, Officer Active Duty Service Obligations, establishes policy and procedures for the receipt, computation, and notice of active duty service obligations.  For the regulation effective 1 March 1982, that obligation was 5 years for personnel who attended initial entry rotary wing flight training.  However, as a result of a change to 10 United States Code 653 which established a 6 year service obligation for helicopter pilot training, the regulation was changed by the above mentioned February 1990 message to require the additional year of service.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant clearly enlisted for initial entry rotary wing flight training well after the active duty service obligation was changed from 5 to 6 years and began his training more than a year after the 30 September 1990 cutoff date for the old 5 year service requirement.

2.  The applicant’s recruiter may or may not have erroneously told him that his service obligation would be 5 years upon completion of flight training, but it is a fact that he signed an enlistment document which prescribed a 5 year commitment.  There is no evidence that the applicant’s recruiter attempted to correct the form by lining through the incorrect active duty service obligation and indicating the correct one of 6 years.

3.  The evidence presented indicates that the applicant argued against signing the DA Form 160 which reflected the 6 year commitment for nearly 1 month.  His legal assistance officer provided a contemporaneous statement indicating that the applicant may have signed the form under duress.

4.  The Total Army Personnel Command advisory opinion to deny the applicant’s request appears based on the argument that the requirements of a Federal statute control when in opposition to an Army enlistment contract.  While this may be true, the Total Army Personnel Command is not a board of equity and must, therefore, defer to the statute.  This Board, on the other hand, may consider matters of equity in arriving at a fair decision.  In this case, it is apparent that the applicant was promised that he would only have to serve 5 years in return for attending WOFT.  To impose a 6 year commitment on him would be unjust and inequitable.

5.  In view of the foregoing findings and conclusions, and in the interest of justice and equity, it would be appropriate to correct the applicant’s records as indicated below.

RECOMMENDATION:

That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by changing the active duty service obligation of the individual concerned from 6 years to 5 years commencing on 1 October 1992 and ending on 30 September 1997.

BOARD VOTE:  

                       GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

                       GRANT FORMAL HEARING

                       DENY APPLICATION




		                          ________ 
		        CHAIRPERSON