RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-04772 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) be changed from 16 Feb 15 to 9 Sep 14. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She volunteered for a Permanent Change of Station (PCS) to Creech AFB, NV to fly the MQ-1 Predator unmanned aerial vehicle, with the understanding that her PCS commitment would be in line with her latest ADSC of 16 Sep 14, tied to her GI Bill benefit transfer, and would not create a commitment extension. After arriving at her new duty station, they were no longer training initial students and they would have to get training from a Temporary Duty (TDY) location, thus changing her class start date from 27 Jun 11 to 15 Nov 11. This resulted in her ADSC being extended to 16 Feb 15, five months more than she agreed upon prior to her PCS. She would not have volunteered for the assignment had she been aware of this information and would not have incurred an additional five months on her ADSC. She reluctantly signed the new training and ADSC paperwork because she knew she would have incurred the commitment regardless of her signature. Had she known that her training would be delayed she would not have agreed to retrain to a new weapon system. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in the grade of major (O-4). On 22 Nov 10, the applicant acknowledged receipt of her PCS assignment as well as her understanding of her ADSC associated with accepting the assignment. On 6 Dec 10, the applicant was issued PCS orders to her new assignment at Creech AFB, NV with a Report No Later Than Date (RNLTD) of 15 Jan 11. On 13 Jan 11, the applicant arrived at her new duty station. On 19 Sep 11, the applicant acknowledged the new ADSC of 9 Feb 15 and agreed to the new training dates by signing the AF Form 63, ADSC Acknowledgement Statement. In accordance with AFI 36-2107, Active Duty Service Commitments (ADSC), Table 1.1, Rules 6 and 16, there is a two-year ADSC for PCS (CONUS to CONUS) and a three-year ADSC for Advanced Flying Training (AFT). The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility which is attached at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIP recommends denial, indicating the applicant received, acknowledged and agreed to accept and serve the ADSC for the later training. She also had the option to accept or decline the later training on the AF Form 63 in Section II. Instead, she accepted the training and agreed to the ADSC that began upon completion of the ADSC incurring event. As a result, her ADSC was established to expire on 16 Feb 15. Nonetheless, the assignment notification report on individual personnel (RIP) did not reflect either ADSC outlined in AFI 36-2107 and should have. On 12 Nov 10, the Total Force Service Center (TFSC) staff transmitted an AF Form 63 to the Military Personnel Section (MPS) at Peterson AFB, CO; however, a signed copy of the acknowledgment statement was not returned. As a result, the applicant transferred to the new assignment without the TFSC receiving a completed AF Form 63. On 13 Sep 11, the TFSC created another AF Form 63 for the applicant and transmitted it to the new servicing MPS at Nellis AFB, NV. Unlike the first form, this one had new training dates of 15 Nov 11 through 17 Feb 12. On 19 Sep 11, the applicant received and acknowledged the ADSC and agreed to the new training dates. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 21 Dec 12 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D). ________________________________________________________________ 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 an 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 office of primary responsibility and adopt its 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 evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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 BC-2012-04772 in Executive Session on 9 Jul 13, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 1 Oct 12, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSIP, dated 15 Nov 12, w/atchs. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Dec 12. Panel Chair