RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  01-00252
		INDEX NUMBER:  100.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His three-year Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) incurred as a result of his completion of T-37 Pilot Instructor Training be reduced by 16 months.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

An unrealistic Undergraduate Pilot Training (UPT) assignment process, an involuntary assignment extension, and poor career counseling have led to a forecast ADSC of 16 months longer than he originally contracted.

Applicant’s complete statement setting forth the reasons he believes the relief should be granted is included as Attachment 1 to Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant flew the C-21 for approximately three and one-half years before cross training into the C-141.  Upon completion of C-141 Initial Qualification Training (IQT), he flew the C-141 for approximately two and one-half years before volunteering to become a T-37 Instructor Pilot.  He attended T-37 Pilot Instructor Training (PIT) from 13 September 2000 to 5 January 2001 and is now assigned to Laughlin AFB as a T-37 instructor pilot.

In accordance with AFI 36-2107, Active Duty Service Commitments, dated 15 March 1992 (version in effect at the time), Table 4, Rule 6, the applicant incurred an eight-year ADSC for completion of UPT (27 September 2002).  He incurred an additional five-year ADSC (27 May 2003) for completion of C-141 IQT in accordance with AFI 36-2107, dated 6 July 1994 (version in effect at the time), Table l.5, Rule l.  Finally, he incurred a three-year ADSC (4 January 2004) for completion of T-37 PIT in accordance with AFI 36-2107, dated 1 June 2000 (version in effect at the time, Table 1.1, Rule ll.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSFO responds to the applicant’s contentions and recommends that the application be denied.  In closing, that office states that the applicant made several career decisions resulting in his receipt of valuable Air Force training.  Although he cites specific reasons for the decisions he made, the Air Force did not unfairly or unjustly assign his associated ADSCs.  In regard to his PIT ADSC, the applicant was properly counseled in advance and agreed to serve the three-year ADSC.  The applicant entered into this agreement fully informed of the obligation he would incur.  He now seeks to avoid the commitment he voluntarily entered.  Even if the applicant’s request to reduce his PIT ADSC by 16 months is approved his C-141 IQT ADSC will remain, obligating him through 27 May 2003.  The applicant has not provided sufficient justification to support his request (Exhibit C with Attachments 1 through 3).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the advisory opinion was made available to the applicant for review and comment in accordance with established policy on 4 May 2001 (Exhibit D); however, to date, he has failed to respond.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  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 office of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of substantial evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

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 5 June 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

				Panel Chair
				Member
				Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 24 Jan 01, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSFO, dated 20 Apr 01, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 4 May 01.

                                   
                                   Panel Chair