RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-1999-00922
		INDEX NUMBER:  113.04
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) be changed from 30 September 2000 to 8 September 2000.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

While enrolled in T-1A Pilot Instructor Training (PIT), the 99th Fighter Training Squadron experienced a maintenance “shutdown” of approximately three weeks due to a lack of qualified maintenance personnel; and that, since this was an Air Force maintenance issue and not anything he contributed to, he should not have to incur the extra 22 days past his planned graduation date.

Applicant states, in part, that Major “S” from AFMPC assured him that his ADSC would reflect his planned graduation date of 8 September 1997.  He also discussed this situation with his squadron commander and she agrees a change in his ADSC is warranted. This ADSC adjustment has already been granted for another XXXXXXX T-1 PIT who experienced the same delay as his class.

Applicant’s complete statement is included as Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant completed T-1 PIT on 1 October 1997 and incurred a three‑year ADSC of 30 September 2000.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommends that the application be denied.  That office states, in part, that the crux of the applicant’s argument surrounds his “planned” graduation date.  AFI 36-2107 clearly states an ADSC is incurred when training is complete.  Often, unforeseen problems arise which prevent courses from being completed on a “planned” date and the system is designed to have flexibility for such events as weather or maintenance problems.  Had the applicant completed training 22 days early, his ADSC would have reflected his actual graduation date and not the “planned” date.  The applicant signed an AF Form 63 on 18 March 1997 which shows he willingly accepted a three-year ADSC for T-1 PIT “upon completion of training (Atch 3).”  A complete copy of the advisory opinion is included as Exhibit C with Attachments 1 through 3.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states, in part, that there are several errors in the advisory opinion that must be addressed.  First, his current ADSC is based on his last T-1 flight at XXXXXXX PIT, which was 30 September 1997.  The advisory opinion stated that he completed training on 1 October 1997.  Second, there is an officer in his squadron who was delayed approximately 30 days due to the same maintenance problems at XXXXXX PIT and, without request, had his ADSC reflect his earlier planned graduation date.  The advisory opinion author assumes incorrectly in his letter that he was referring to Captain “S”, his T-1 classmate.  He made no effort whatsoever to contact him at XXXXXXX AFB to clarify any facts about the other T-1 Instructor or his formal ADSC request.  Instead, he incorrectly assumes he’s making reference to the Captain “S.”  Third, the advisory opinion author did happen to contact Major “S” at HQ AFPC to question him if he ever spoke to him about changing his ADSC.  Major “S” responded that “he denies ever speaking to me.”  Captain “S” personally introduced him to Major “S” while at Randolph AFB when they visited him in his office to discuss their situation.  Major “S” appeared to be a busy man and he would easily understand it if he never recalled meeting him.  It was then when Major “S” allowed them to read an e-mail from a civilian at AFPC who was responsible for personnel management.  The e-mail stated that since the T-1 maintenance problem was beyond the Air Force’s control, T-1 PIT student’s ADSC paperwork should reflect the earlier of scheduled or actual course completion.  He was told this e-mail was forwarded to SSgt “S” (AFPC) and Lt Colonel “B” (XXFTS/CC).

He finds reason to question his ADSC counseling that he signed on 18 March 1997.  To begin with, he voluntarily agreed to incur an ADSC of 36 months upon completion of training based on his projected date of 8 September 1997.  He would never sign any open‑ended Air Force contract that did not include a planned graduation date.  He also does not recall SRA R” counseling him that if he were delayed due to reasons beyond his control, in his case maintenance problems, that he would still have to serve  his full 36 months.  He believes this ADSC policy is flawed in that it cannot be all encompassing for every situation possible in today’s Air Force.  If he were delayed four or even seven months, would he still have to serve his full 36 months for an AETC assignment?  Since he’s still an AMC asset, would AMC allow him to waste valuable time in training command when he should be back flying his assigned MWS?  He also was not offered counseling on the option of returning to his MWS should the XXXXXXX maintenance problem continue indefinitely.

In conclusion, applicant states that he volunteered to extend on active duty beyond his original UPT training date when he signed the AF Form 63 on 18 March 1997.  The contract he signed projects his ADSC to only one particular date, 8 September 2000.  It does not state anywhere that if he is delayed due to reasons out of his control he cannot be fairly granted an ADSC change reflecting what he originally signed.  According to the advisory opinion author’s letter, “FACTS: a.  The ADSC program assures a reasonable return to the Air Force for the costs incurred in training.”  He believes the Air Force will receive this “reasonable return” long before he should incur the additional 22-day extension.  Finally, since this ADSC change has already been performed for another XXXXXXX AFB T-1 instructor, why is he not offered the same opportunity? (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.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of a probable error or an injustice.  Applicant’s contentions that while enrolled in T-1A PIT, the XXth Fighter Training Squadron experienced a maintenance “shutdown” of approximately three weeks due to a lack of qualified maintenance personnel; and that, since this was an Air Force maintenance issue and not anything he contributed to, he should not have to incur the extra 22 days past his planned graduation date are duly noted.  However, we do not find these assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force.  Therefore, we agree with the recommendation of the Air Force and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been a victim of an error or an injustice to the extent warranting favorable action on his request.
___________________________________________________________________

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 21 July 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 7 Apr 99.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 26 May 99, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 21 Jun 99.
    Exhibit E.  Letter from Applicant, dated 25 Jun 99.