RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-1999-00677
		INDEX CODE:  113.04

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) of 28 September 2003 for Undergraduate Flying Training (UFT) be rescinded.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

While he completed his aviation training and received his wings, he never qualified as a crew member with his first unit of assignment, at XXXXX AFB, as an Electronic Warfare Officer due to his diagnosed hypersensitive vestibular system.  He cannot serve the Air Force in a rated capacity due to his lack of operational experience.  He struggled with his condition throughout the training phase.  But he was internally driven by his desire to earn navigator wings and he was allowed to get shuffled through by doctors at Pensacola.

He states that if the doctors would have ran a battery of tests that he has since undergone, he would not have been permitted to continue in training and would not have incurred the ADSC.  In an effort to push him through training in light of the Air Force’s shortage of navigators, he did not undergo any certrifuge training because the facility was not functioning.  He was informed that the training was not mandatory and if he desired, he could later train with another class.  He included excerpts from flight training records to show the frequency of symptoms (motion sickness) prior to diagnosis.  He experienced symptoms on eight flights.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a copy of the Aeronautical Order - Terminate Aviation Service, Report of Medical Examination (RME), Medical Documents, and Aviation Training Forms.

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 9 August 1993 and was honorably discharged on 20 June 1996 in the grade of staff sergeant to accept commission as a 2nd Lieutenant in the United States Air Force Reserves (USAFR).

On 16 May 1995, applicant signed an AF Form 56 (Application for Training Leading to a Commission in the U.S. Air Force), acknowledging his ADSC of six years.  (TAB 1).

On 21 June 1996, the applicant was appointed a 2nd Lieutenant, USAFR, and ordered to extended active duty.

On 21 June 1998, the applicant was promoted to the grade of 1st lieutenant.

On 29 September 1999, applicant graduated from Undergraduate Flying Training (UFT) and incurred a six year ADSC of 28 September 2003.

On 20 January 1999, applicant was medically disqualified from flying status due to motion sickness.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The XXXXX, Officer Separations, Directorate of Personnel Program Management, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, reviewed this application and states that the ADSC program assures a reasonable return to the Air Force for the costs incurred in training.  ADSCs are routinely incurred for such common place events as permanent change of station, training, education, and promotion.  Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2107, ADSCs and Specified Period of Time Contracts, paragraph 1.1, dated 6 July 1994, outlines the ADSC program.

According to Air Force policy, officers receive ADSCs voluntarily; if they are unwilling to accept the ADSC they elect retirement or separation from the Air Force in lieu of undergoing the training.  Officers are normally advised of these ADSCs in writing and their acknowledgment of their understanding and acceptance of the ADSC is normally documented in writing on an AF Form 63, Officer and Airmen Active Duty Service Commitment Acknowledgment Statement.  The onus is on the officer to prove he/she unwittingly incurred an ADSC for training he/she would not have accepted had he/she been aware of the ADSC prior to entering the training.

The applicant claims his personal desire and the need for navigators in the Air Force allowed him to slip through UFT and graduate, even though he experienced motion sickness on several different occasions during UFT.  While the applicant has provided evidence of his motion sickness during UFT, he was allowed to continue with his training.  They cannot comment on why he was not medically disqualified during UFT; however, the applicant was allowed to continue through UFT and graduate.

The ADSC program ensures a reasonable return for investments in training.  In the applicant’s case, he completed the training, received his navigator wings, and accepted the ADSC associated with it.  The applicant was effectively utilized as a navigator over a one year period before he was medically disqualified.  While he no longer can be utilized as a rated officer by the Air Force, he can be utilized in other fields and provide a return to the taxpayers for his training.  This is not an issue of deciding whether or not the applicant is fit for military service and the medical disqualification does not invalidate his ADSC for UFT.  According to HQ AFPC/DPAOM, Rated Officer Assignments, the applicant is presently applying for the Funded Legal Education Program (FLEP).  If selected by the FLEP Board, HQ AFPC/DPAOM will release him to pursue his law degree.  However, HQ AFPC/DPAOM states that should the applicant not be selected for FLEP, he will be released for utilization in either a support or operational support career field to fulfill his UFT ADSC.  

The applicant willingly completed UFT and accepted the associated six year ADSC.  While he has been diagnosed with motion sickness and has been pulled from flying status, this does not invalidate the UFT ADSC.  In order for the Air Force to receive a return on the investment for training, the applicant will be utilized effectively in another capacity not requiring flying duties.  Therefore, they recommend denial of applicant’s request.

However, if the Board grants the relief sought, his 28 September 2003 ADSC for UFT will be rescinded thus establishing his longest ADSC as 21 November 2000 for tuition assistance.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the evaluation and states that it took him double the amount of time most students require to complete training.  This was due to medical problems.  Much like his experience in UFT, his training was stilted due to struggles with motion sickness.  With the mass of students that were being put through training and the desire to retain as many of those students as possible in light of the shortage of navigators and the concurrent problems with the new joint training program, he did not receive the standard of care that he has since being at Offutt AFB.  When the process of his disqualification started, he was told by medical personnel that he should never have been allowed to complete his flying training.  Absent accurate information regarding his physical health and the ability to perform the job for which he was receiving training, he could not have made an informed decision regarding his training or any resulting commitment.

Applicant’s complete response, with attachment, is attached at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant, SAF/PC, reviewed this application and states that applicant completed navigator training with eight documented incidents of airsickness, full (vomiting) and partial (queasiness), between November 1996 and May 1997.  He supplies copies of medical reports of three visits to the flight surgeons who handled the situation appropriately with counseling and suggested methods for overcoming this problem.  They do not have evidence that any extended work-up was indicated or performed during this UPT period.  By his own admission, the applicant persevered in reaching his goal of completion of training and was subsequently graduated and sent to his duty assignment at Offutt AFB.  There he was placed Duty Not Involving Flying (DNIF) and eventually disqualified from further flying effective 20 January 1999 for continued problems with airsickness.  Investigation has resulted in a diagnosis of hyperactive vestibular (inner ear) system in lieu of finding any other demonstrable organic reason for his difficulties.

Evidence of records shows that the applicant’s airsickness, which occurred in approximately 25% of his flights in UPT, was appropriately addressed by the NAS Flight Surgeons who evaluated him.  His problem, while being of some concern, was not felt severe enough to warrant elimination from the training program, and allowing him to continue to graduation and acceptance of an ADSC was not contrary to acceptable standards.  He was able to fulfill 9 months of navigator duty before being placed DNIF in June 1998 prior to his recommended disqualification in October 1998.

Had the applicant been eliminated from UPT for a medical problem, he would have incurred a two year ADSC the day he was placed DNIF at his training site or at his RNLTD to his duty assignment IAQ AFI 36-2107, Table 1.8.  It is clear from the records submitted that he was not considered for UPT elimination, and his resulting ADSC is, therefore, valid and should not be waived.  No error was committed in allowing the applicant to complete UPT, and his resulting ADSC should be completed unless he is released by proper authority for other reasons.  Therefore, they recommend denial of applicant’s request.

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the evaluation and states that after three airsickness evaluations an individual was placed in the airsickness desensitization program, which was considered to take too long and should be avoided if at all possible.  He was encouraged not to enter that program.  He was instructed by Navy personnel that he should see them if he had additional episodes but desired to continue in training.  He did, on at least three occasions that are not documented in his medical records.  As stated in the advisory, “We do not have evidence that any extended work-up was indicated or performed during this UPT period.”  The absence of this work-up is why he was not considered for UPT elimination.

His last flight in Undergraduate Navigator Training (UNT) was on 4 June 1997.  He did not fly again until 7 April 1998.  His last flight as a crew member was on 22 June 1998.  The advisory asserts that he was able to fulfill nine months of navigator duty.  The nine-month period that was referred to was from 27 September 1997 to 22 June 1998, included a two and one-half months of flying and eight flights.  Nine months of navigator duty is hardly representative of the resistance training, academic training, and extra duties he performed in the interim.

He currently has an ADSC for tuition assistance that extends to the spring of 2001.  Next year he will be eligible for promotion to captain and he plans to accept the one year ADSC associated with that.  This will move his second longest ADSC to 21 June 2001.  The Air Force would receive nearly four years of duty from the date of his graduation from UNT.  He considers this a reasonable return for the costs incurred through training that he cannot use in or out of the Air Force.  AFPC has already determined that he is not employable as an Electronic Warfare Officer (EWO) and will have to be retrained.

Applicant’s complete response is attached at 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 probable error or injustice.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  While the applicant had problems during his UPT training, he was allowed to continue.  Since the applicant completed UPT, we believe that the ASDC he incurred is valid.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, 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 this application in Executive Session on 14 September 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 9 Mar 99, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 21 Apr 99, w/atchs.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 10 May 1999.
   Exhibit E.  Applicant’s Response, dated 27 May 99, w/atchs.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/PC, dated 19 May 99.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 21 May 99.
   Exhibit H.  Applicant’s Response, dated 5 Aug 99, w/atch.