RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  01-01844
		INDEX CODE:  113.04

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) of Nov 03, incurred for Upgrade Pilot Training (UPT), be removed from her records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She believes the ADSC is unjust due to the fact that she was unable to complete her commitment because of injuries caused by a Class A helicopter accident, resulting in her medical disqualification from the career field.

In support of her appeal, the applicant provided an expanded statement, and documentation pertaining to her ADSC.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Personnel Data System (PDS) indicates that the applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of major, having been promoted to that grade on 1 Jan 02.  Her Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 15 Apr 91.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSFO provided an initial evaluation and recommended denial.  AFPC/DPSFO noted that the applicant graduated UPT in Nov 95 and incurred an eight-year ADSC in accordance with Air Force Instruction 36-2107, Active Duty Service Commitments (ADSC) and Specified Period of Time Contracts (SPTC), Table 1.4, Rule 6, dated 6 Jul 94.  This ADSC obligated her to serve on active duty through 9 Nov 03.  The applicant was also projected to incur an additional five-year ADSC for completion of M/HH-60G Initial Qualification Training to be served concurrently with the UPT commitment in accordance with AFI 36-2107, Table 1.5, Rule 1.  This ADSC was later reduced to 2 years based upon withdrawal from the course due to medical disqualification in accordance with Table 1.8, Rule 13 of AFI 36-2107.  This is the ADSC that the applicant refers to having been awarded for “being withdrawn from the rated career field.”

Following her reassignment to Maxwell AFB in Aug 97, the applicant requested removal of this ADSC based upon being “medically disqualified” from flying.  After “several months” of coordination with the Military Personnel Flight (MPF) and the Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC) and numerous instances of this commitment being removed and subsequently reappearing, the applicant was finally informed in Oct 00 that the ADSC was valid and would remain a matter of record.

According to AFPC/DPSFO, they contacted a master sergeant formerly assigned to AFPC regarding this matter.  Although he had no specific recollection of this applicant, he clearly recalled the procedures in place for ADSC removal/reduction at the time in question.  He stated since the MPFs were directly responsible for updating and verifying ADSC data, he would only become involved on a case-by-case basis (such as if the MPF requested assistance).  He also clearly recalls approval from the Board for Correction of Military Records as the only authority for removal of an ADSC after completion of the course.  Additionally, they asked him to review the remarks he used in the applicant’s application of a system transaction completed on 20 May 98 for the reason “Member previously eliminated from flying training, UPT ADSC is removed.” Since the applicant graduated from UPT, he was convinced that he would not have used this verbiage unless the MPF mistakenly provided him incorrect course information.  The applicant is asking the Board to weigh in the incorrect advice and information received from AFPC in its decision.  AFPC/DPSFO believes it is equally important to reiterate this information was provided more than 36 months after the member was correctly counseled and accepted the eight-year ADSC associated with completion of UPT.

AFPC/DPSFO indicated that the applicant stated the medical condition she suffered as a consequence of the mishap no longer afforded her the opportunity to fulfill the ADSC in the capacity it was meant, “as an Air Force Pilot.”  Although there are usually Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) utilization periods associated with specific training and education, Air Force members are not specifically tied to a training specialty or AFSC while completing their ADSC.  There are many instances when Air Force members are retrained or reclassified from specialties after they have been trained.  However, they are still expected to serve the appropriate term of active service to ensure the Air Force and the taxpayers receive an appropriate return for their investment in training and education.

Finally AFPC/DPSFO indicated that AFPC/CC personally interviewed the applicant regarding her situation and he wanted to include his personal comments: “After personal discussion with Major XXX, I have come to the following conclusion.  She said that she knows and understands that she incurred an ADSC from pilot training.  However, there are two factors she wanted to be considered.  First and foremost, after receiving injuries caused during a Class A accident that grounded her, she was not given rated duties.  Second, she was presented information by her MPF and AFPC ADSC experts that her commitment would be reduced to a two-year period. Bottom-line, Major XXX was correctly counseled prior to pilot training and was fully aware that she incurred an 8-year ADSC.”

In AFPC/DPSFO’s view, the ADSC was justly and appropriately applied upon the award of the applicant’s aeronautical rating (Pilot) on 10 Nov 95, and that the applicant has not provided sufficient justification to support her request.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSFO evaluation is at Exhibit B.

AFPC/DPSFO provided a subsequent evaluation and indicated that they originally submitted the applicant’s package in Nov 01 with a disapproval recommendation.  However, they requested that the package be returned to AFPC (before the Board made an official decision) to further review the package.  Based upon further discussions, they concluded that technically they were correct (requesting disapproval), however, they felt that the applicant’s case was unique because the MPF and AFPC ADSC experts repeatedly provided inaccurate information.  After re-addressing this issue to AFPC/CC, they have determined that their original disapproval recommendation was appropriate as discussed in the technical advisory.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSFO evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In her response, the applicant indicated that the original ADSC was correctly applied.  She earned an eight-year ADSC for completing UPT.  However, when the circumstances changed and she was no longer medically qualified to fly, the ADSC should have been adjusted accordingly.  She depended on the advice of the experts at the local MPF and AFPC to ensure this was accomplished.  If she had been advised correctly, she would have submitted this request in 1997 when she was medically grounded from flying.  The ADSC was not “incorrectly” applied.  It was unjustly applied.

The applicant respectfully requests that the Board look at the full facts of her case.  She wanted to be an Air Force pilot since she was in high school, and she earned her opportunity to do so.  However, through no fault of her own, her flying career was cut short.  She has served the Air Force for three assignments and six years after her accident, not because she was forced to, based upon her ADSC, but because she wanted to.  However, to hold her to a commitment because she received training that she can no longer utilize in the Air Force nor in the civilian community is unjust.

Applicant’s complete response, 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 not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.  The applicant's complete submission was thoroughly reviewed and her contentions were duly noted.  However, we do not find the applicant’s assertions or the documentation submitted in support of her appeal sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR).  Therefore, in the absence of clear-cut evidence that the applicant’s eight-year ADSC for completion of UPT was erroneous, she was treated differently than others similarly situated, or that she relied on the improper advice regarding the removal of the ADSC from her records to her detriment, we agree with the recommendation of the OPR and adopt their rationale as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain her burden of establishing that she has suffered either an error or an injustice.  Accordingly, 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 AFBCMR Docket Number 01-01844 in Executive Session on 6 Mar 02, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 3 Jul 01, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPSFO, dated 24 Jan 02.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSFO, dated 24 Jan 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Jan 02.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, applicant, dated 6 Feb 02.