RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-03514 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The 11-month Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) he incurred for attending the Joint Terminal Attack Controller Course (JTACAIC) be cancelled. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The JTACAIC course he attended at the Air Force Weapons School required a 36-month ADSC. He signed the service commitment under rule 19, AFI 36-2107, Active Duty Service Commitments. This course has yet to be accredited and the syllabus has not been approved. An ADSC should not be required until this course is approved or accredited. In support of the appeal, the applicant provides documentation from his master personnel record. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is currently active duty serving in the grade of technical sergeant. On 18 December 2012, he signed AF Form 1411, Extension or Cancellation of Extensions of Enlistment in the Regular Air Force (REGAF), Air Force Reserve (AF Reserve), Air National Guard (ANG), requesting his enlistment of 18 March 2010 be extended by 11 months to qualify for training. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIP recommends denial. On or about 17 December 2012, the applicant received notification to attend JTACAIC training from 7 January 2013 through 15 June 2013. At the same time, he was informed of the requirement to obtain retainability. He extended his enlistment for 11 additional months to qualify for training. The applicant contends he should not obtain retainability for an unaccredited course. However, the guidance published in AFI 36- 2107, does not state that courses must have accreditation before ensuring the AF obtains the appropriate return on its investment. The instruction does on the other hand state in table 1.1, rule 19, Airmen attending educational program lasting 20 weeks (this includes his program) are required to have or obtain the required retainability prior to attending to training. The applicant attended the course and is required to serve the ADSC. Notwithstanding he had the option to decline training, he opted to attend; his extension is valid. The complete DPSIP evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial. The applicant does not contest his extension; he contends the reason for the extension is invalid. Reenlistments do not validate the reason for retainability; they assist in getting the retainability, if eligible. The office of primary responsibility, AFPC/DPSIP, has validated the 11 month retainability requirement and recommended the requirement remain firm. The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 10 January 2014, for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E). As of this date, this office has received no response. ________________________________________________________________ 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 error or injustice. We took notice of the applicant’s submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the AFPC/DPSIP and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant’s 11-month extension is valid and find that he 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 that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of 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 BC-2013-03514 in Executive Session on 10 April 2014 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 24 Jul 13, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSIP, dated 9 Sep 13. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 1 Nov 13. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Jan 14.