AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY R autD! 3 1998 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

DOCKET NUMBER:  97-03642 
COUNSEL:  NONE 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

His Active  Duty  Service Commitment  (ADSC) of  “January  2000”  (sic) 
be changed to 12 September 1998. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

He  was  improperly  counseled  during  assignment  processing;  that 
proper  documentation  noting  his  refusal  of  the  ADSC  was  not 
initiated by  the  assignment clerk; and  that the ADSC was  unjustly 
changed  three  weeks  prior  to  his  submission  of  his  separation 
request. 

Applicant‘s  complete  statement  and  documentary  evidence  submitted 
in  support  of  his  application  are  included  as  Exhibit  A  with 
Attachments 1 through 3. 

- -  

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
In February  1994, applicant volunteered  and was  selected for C-130 
sequent  permanent 
initial  qualification  tra 
He completed the 
change of station  (PCS) to 
C-130  IQT  on  31  October  1994  and  incurred  a  five-vear  ADSC  of 
30 October  1999.  In August  1997, applicant asked for an extension 
to his DEROS of January 1998 based on the assumption that this ADSC 
expired  on  12  September  1998  (UPT ADSC).  It  was  not  until  then 
that his assignment action officer discovered the missing ADSC  for 
the  C-130  IQT  and  took  steps  to  update  the  ADSC  based  on  his 
projected training completion date. 

QT 1 
AB , 

4 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

HQ  AFPC/DPPRS  explains  the  reason  for  establishment  of  ADSCs  for 
flying  training,  provides  a  summary  of  the  applicant’s  prior 
experience  with  ADSC-incurring  events,  and  recommends  that  the 
application be denied.  It is indicated that during the applicant’s 
initial  relocation  briefing,  he  recalls  being  informed  by  the 

personnel technician that he would incur a five-year commitment for 
the IQT.  He states in his appeal that he told the clerk he was not 
willing to incur a commitment beyond his UPT ADSC, which expires in 
September 1998.  However, there is no documentation of his refusal 
-  not an AF Form 63 indicating the declination or any type of memo 
from applicant  expressing this  refusal nor  his  intent to  separate 
in lieu of the assignment.  Traditionally if an officer declines to 
accept the ADSC,  he/she declines in writing on the AF  Form  63 ‘and 
is  subsequently  forced  to  apply  for  separation.  Even  if  he’ had 
formally declined the ADSC at that time, AF policy prior to Sep 95, 
did  not  allow  officers  with  more  than  12 months  retainability  to 
elect  the  7-day  option  to  separate  in  lieu  of  training/PCS. 
Although  unpopular  and  arguably  insensitive  by  subordinating 
personal  desires  to  Air  Force  needs,  the  previous  7-day  option 
policy  was  equitably  applied  to  a  large,  broad-based  Air  Force 
population and did not represent an unfairness which amounted to an 
in justice. 
Consequently,  officers  were  not  afforded  the 
opportunity  to  elect  the  7-day  option  and  could  have  been 
involuntarily  PCSed.  Additionally,  it  is  reasonable  to  believe 
that  applicant‘s  assignment  action  officer  would  have  discussed 
this commitment explicitly with him, and in fact noted the training 
commitment  as  five years  in the  assignment trailer  remarks of his 
assignment  worksheet. 
Applicant  cannot  categorically  deny 
foreknowledge of the ADSC associated with this training. 

Applicant  states  in  his  appeal  that  his  “intention  has  been  to 
separate from the Air  Force’’ upon completion of his ADSC  from UPT, 
ever,  when  he  was  selected  for  a  follow-on 
September  199 
assignment  to 
:AFB,  applicant  was  given  the  opportunity  to 
state his intent by declining the assignment in writing at the time 
he  received  his  initial  relocation  briefing.  Although  he  would 
have still been required to PCS  (since he still had an ADSC out to 
October  1999  for  I Q T ) ,   he  would  have  stated  for  the  record  his 
intent  to  separate  under  the  7-day  option  policy  and  formally 
established  his  date  of  separation  equal  to  his  longest  ADSC, 
30 Oct 1999 for the C-130 IQT.  Although this declaration would not 
have  allowed  him  to  separate  any  sooner,  it  would  have  better 
supported his  assertion of  the desire to  separate at  the earliest 
possible  date. 
His  failure  to  exercise  his  7-day  option 
entitlement  constituted his voluntary  acceptance of  the assignment 
and the commitment to a 12-month ADSC  (now recorded as 15 February 
1999). 

One final note  for the Board to consider.  It appears applicant is 
hich  took place during his 
having difficulty  recalling th 
preparation  for relocation to 
In his appeal package, he 
states, “The  clerk never asked me to sign an AF  Form 63,” and, “My 
refusal  to  accept  the  five-year ADSC  was  never  mentioned  again.” 
However,  in his most  recent hotline e-mail  to  the AFPC  Commander, 
he very clearly contradicts himself by stating, “I  was told after a 
couple days, it  [the ADSC] would not be three years.  I refused to 
sign  the  form  63  still  showing  a  five-year  ADSC.” 
In  a  file 
attached  to  an  earlier  e-mail  to  the  former  AFPC  Commander,  he 
stated,  \\I  contend  I  was  not  properly  counseled . . . .  When 

2 

AFBCMR  97-03642 

processing  me  for  the  assignment,  the  assignment  clerk  did  not 
counsel me nor have me in any way acknowledge, that I would incur a 
five-year  commitment  as  a  result  of  the  C-130  training ...”  This 
directly conflicts with  statements he made  in an earlier e-mail to 
his assignment AO, “I took the only measure afforded me  in refusing 
the five-year commitment, by not signing the form 63 ....  There is 
no  documentation  explaining  the  commitment policy  to me.  I  told 
you  I  knew  of  the  five-year  commitment,  but  only  from  squadron 
gossip.”  So on various occasions, we have differing recollections 
of  that  same  initial  relocation  briefing  with  the  personnel 
technician.  Which  are we  to believe is the truth?  Was  he or was 
he  not presented  an AF  Form  63?  Did he  or did he not have prior 
knowledge of the five-year ADSC?  He also states in his e-mail to 
the  AFPC  Commander  that  he  continued  to  check  his  ADSC  over  the 
next three years,  and  even visited AFPC  to personally  look at his 
records.  They  submit that  an  officer  this concerned  -  almost  to 
the  point  of  paranoia  -  over  his  ADSC,  knew  full well  he  should 
have had a five-year ADSC in his record -  as he was briefed by that 
assignment  clerk  and his  assignment action officer.  Yet he  chose 
not  to  clarify  the matter  in hopes  that  no  one would  discover  it 
until  it  was  in  his  opinion  “too  late” to  do  anything  about  it. 
Clearly  his  intent  in this persistent  checking was  not  to clarify 
his  ADSC,  but  was  to  make  sure  the  five-year  ADSC  was  never 
reflected in the system. 

In  conclusion,  HQ  AFPC/DPPRS,  states  that  as  they  are  aware  the 
applicant will  receive a copy of this advisory, they would like to 
direct  his  attention  to  block  13  of  the  DD  Form  149  he  signed, 
which  states,  “I  make  the  foregoing  statements,  as  part  of  my 
claim, with  full knowledge of  the penalties involved for willfully 
making  a  false statement or  claim.”  (Exhibit C  with Attachments  1 
through 8.) 

APPLICANT‘S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

A  copy of the advisory opinion was made available to applicant for 
review and  comment on 5 June 1998  (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.  Sufficient  relevant evidence has been presented  to demonstrate 
the  existence  of  probable  error  or  injustice warranting  favorable 
action on the applicant‘s request for removal of the five-year ADSC 
he incurred as a result of completion of C-130 IQT. 

3 

AFBCMR  97-03642 

4.  We  agree with  the Air  Force  that  the applicant was made  aware 
of  the  five-year  C-130  IQT  ADSC  at  the  time  of  his  relocation 
briefing.  Therefore, had  the only  issues been  the lack of proper 
counseling and the signing of the AF Form 63, we may have reached a 
different result.  The pivotal issue in this case, however, is the 
policy  that was in effect at the time that precluded  the applicant 
from exercising the 7-day option to separate rather than incur 'the 
additional  five-year  ADSC  involuntarily.  We  recognize  that' the 
Secretary  of  the  Air  Force  has  discretionary  authority  to 
promulgate  rules  and  regulations  governing  the  operations  of  the 
Air  Force. 
Nonetheless,  the  change  in  policy  is  troublesome 
because it did not affect all officers on active duty and tended to 
foster a perception of unfair treatment.  The policy change, in our 
view,  also  seriously  eroded  the  confidence  of  the  individuals we 
sorely  need  to  sustain  our  commitment to an  all  volunteer  force. 
Recognizing  that  there were  a  large number of officers whose  only 
outstanding  ADSCs  resulted  from  this  policy  change,  however,  we 
attempted to set a standard for recommending relief.  Specifically, 
we  believe  that  relief  should  be  extended  to  those  officers  who 
expressed  a  genuine  desire  to  leave  the  service  at  the  time  of 
selection  for  the  assignment  and  had  a  plausible  explanation  for 
failing to vigorously pursue all avenues in seeking relief from the 
policy  change in a  timely manner.  The  latter standard would  seem 
to disqualify the applicant.  On the other hand, the five-year ADSC 
was  not  established  in the  applicant's  records until August 1997, 
nearly  three  years  after  he  had  completed  the  C-130  IQT.  Until 
such time as the ADSC was established in his records, he obviously 
had  no  reason  to  complain. 
Once  the  change  was  made,  he 
immediately  appealed  to  us  asking  that  the  five-year  ADSC  be 
removed. 

5.  In  view  of  the  foregoing,  we  believe  that  the  applicant's 
request should be granted as an exception to policy. 

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: 

The pertinent  military  records of  the  Department of  the Air  Force 
relating  to  APPLICANT,  be  corrected  to  show  that  his  five-year 
Active  Duty  Service Commitment  (ADSC) incurred as a  result of  his 
completion  of  C-130  Initial  Qualification  Training  (IQT)  be 
declared void. 

The  following members  of  the  Board  considered this  application  in 
Executive  Session  on  26  June  1998,  under  the  provisions  of  A F I  
36-2603: 

Mr. LeRoy T. Baseman, Panel Chairman 
Mr. Benedict A. Kausal IV, Member 

-  Mr. David W. Mulgrew, Member 

4 

AFBCMR  97-03642 

All  members  voted  to  correct  the  records,  as  recommended.  The 
following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149,  dated 4 Dec 97, w/atchs. 
Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 21 May 98, w/atchs. 
Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 5 Jun 98. 

LEROY T .   BASEMAN 
Panel Chair 

.. - 

5 

AFBCMR  97-03642 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

I 

WASHINGTON DC 

Office of the Assistant Secretary 

AFBCMR 97-03642 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF 

Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction 
of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 
116), it is directed that: 

(IQT) be, and hereby is, declared void. 

of the Department of the Air Force relating t 
corrected to show that his five-year Active D 
sult of his completion of C-130 Initial Qualification Training 

Air Force Review Boards Agency