DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

WASHINGTON DC 

Office of the Assistant Secretary 

AFBCMR 98-00605 

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: 

litary records of the Department of the Air Force relating t 
e corrected to show that the five-year Active Duty Service 

incurred as a result of completion of B-2 Initial Qualification Training 

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

Air Force Review Boards Agency 

AIR  FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY REC 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  98-00605 
COUNSEL: 

HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

All  information  relating  to  any  Active  Duty  Service  Commitment 
(ADSC) associated with  B-2  Initial Qualification  Training  (IQT) be 
removed from his records. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

At  no  time  during  the  application  process,  interview,  selection 
notification, permanent  change of station  (PCS) out-processing,  PCS 
in-processing,  course  introduction  and  course  completion was  there 
any mention of, counseling on, or signing of anything in connection 
with an ADSC for B-2 IQT; and that this is evidenced by the absence 
of any supporting documentation, such as an AF Form 63 or Statement 
of Understanding,  and the written and verbally  admitted lack of any 
B-2  I Q T   ADSC  process  by  squadron,  operations  group,  and  wing 
supervisors. 

He  states, in part,  that he made  his  decision to  separate from the 
Air  Force  in  August  1997  and  it  affected  subsequent  career 
progression  decisions. 
He  decided  not  to  apply  for  Test  Pilot 
School  (a  personal  goal  for  years)  and  declined  an  instructor 
upgrade offer due to the associated ADSCs.  Following the emergence 
of  the  B-2  training  ADSC  issue  with  subsequent  words  and  measures 
taken  by  wing  leaders  to  remove  the  involuntary  commitment,  he 
expected the UPT ADSC  to be the most binding. 

Applicant’s  complete  statement  and  documentary  evidence  submitted 
in support of his application are included at Exhibit A. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

Applicant,  a  captain, volunteered  and  graduated  from B-2  IQT Class 
8 on  23 December  1996.  As  a  result, he  incurred  a  five-year ADSC 
of  22 December  2001.  The ADSC  was  not  established  in his  records 
until some six months after he completed the IQT. 

AIR  FORCE EVALUATION: 

HQ  AFPC/DPPRS  recommends  that  the  application  be  denied. 
It 
indicates, in part,  that Air  Force policy  is that officers receive 
ADSCs  voluntarily;  if  they  are  unwilling  to  accept  the ADSC,  they 
are  to  elect  separation  from  the  Air  Force  in  lieu  of  undergoing 
the  training. 
Officers  are  normally  advised  of  these  ADSCs  in 
writing  and  their  acknowledgment  of  their  understanding  and 
acceptance  of  the  ADSC  is  normally  documented  in  writing,  on  AF 
Form  63.  Occasionally,  this  procedure  is  not  followed  in  exact 
accordance  with  delineated  procedures. 
In  those  cases,  the  Air 
Force still awards the ADSC as the vast majority  have been incurred 
with  the officer’s  full understanding and willing  acceptance.  The 
onus  is  on  the  officer  to  prove  that  he  unwittingly  incurred  an 
ADSC  for training  he  would  not  have  accepted  had  he  been  aware  of 
the ADSC prior to entering the training. 

In  August  1997,  AFPC  discovered  an  Air  Force  Training  Management 
System  (AFTMS) database error  for several ADSCs,  including  the 8-2 
IQT,  and  immediately  initiated  the  systems  fix  to  update  the 
correct  ADSCs  -  in  the  case  of  B- 2  IQT,  five  years  from  course 
graduation  date.  This  discovery  originated  in  part  with  HQ  Air 
Combat  Command’s  (ACC)  discovery  that  the  records  of  B- 2 
I Q T  
graduates were not being updated with  the five-year ADSCs they were 
incurring  for  the  training.  At  that  time,  ACC  requested  AFPC  to 
update  five-year  ADSCs  for  the  most  recent  B- 2  IQT  class. 
Applicant’s  record  was  affected  by  this  update. 
This  update 
properly  set his ADSC out to 22 December 2 0 0 1 .  
Applicant  states  that  nowhere  in  the  process  of  his  selection  for 
and  subsequent  PCS  t o   attend  B- 2  IQT was  he  briefed  on  the proper 
ADSC  he  would  incur  for  this  training. 
Admittedly,  proper 
counseling  procedures  were  not  followed  in his  case.  However,  as 
stated  earlier,  the  burden  is  on  applicant  to  prove  that  he 
unwittingly  incurred  an  ADSC  for  training  he  would  not  have 
accepted  had  he  been  aware  of  the  ADSC  prior  to  entering  the 
training.  Applicant  has  an  extensive  history  of  volunteering  for 
and  accepting  training  and  the  associated  ADSCs  for  training  in 
several  aircraft  systems.  In his  case  specifically,  the  issue  is 
whether  an  officer  as  experienced  as  he  is  in  receiving  ADSCs  for 
flying  training,  truly  unwittingly  incurred an ADSC  which  he  would 
not  have  been  willing  to  accept  had  he  been  completely  and  timely 
advised of the ADSC. 

Applicant  claims  that  at  the  time  he  volunteered  for  retraining 
into the B - 2 ,   he was told he would only incur the two-year ADSC  for 
the  PCS  assignment  associated  with  the  retraining. 
Notably, 
nowhere  does  he  state  that  he  would  not  have  accepted  the 
assignment  to  the  B-2  had  he  had  knowledge  of  the  five-year ADSC. 
If the ADSC was in fact a weighing  factor in his decision to accept 
training,  applicant  could  have  easily  referred  to  AFI  36-2107  to 
see that it clearly states the commitment for IQT in an aircraft as 
five  years. 
It  is  inconceivable  that  given  his  history  of 
voluntarily  attending  flying  training  courses  and  accepting  their 

2 

AFBCMR  98-00605 

associated ADSCs,  that he would  not understand  that  IQT in the Air 
Force’s  newest  and  most  advanced  bomber  carried  with  it  an  ADSC 
that was  at  the  very  least  comparable  to  the previous  IQT courses 
he  completed. 
His  alleged  concern  over  the  length  of  the 
commitment  associated  with  this  training  should  have  awakened  his 
professional  obligation  to  pursue  the  matter  further;  a  little 
research  into the AF  Instruction  in effect  at  the  time would  have 
revealed it plainly  stated the commitment for IQT in an aircraft as 
five  years.  This  instruction  was  (and still  is  today)  published 
for use Air  Force-wide and was  readily available  for his  review at 
the time  (Exhibit C with Attachments 1 through 4). 

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR  FORCE EVALUATION: 

Applicant  states,  in  part,  that  he  had  no  knowledge  of  any 
additional  ADSC  required  beyond  the  two-year  PCS  and  t 
T-38  PIT  commitments  he  accepted  with  his  assignment  to 
for transition to the B- 2.  The Wing did not consider B-2 
formal  training  and  did  not  even  consider  it  to  be  an 
ADSC-incurring  event. 
He  never  agreed  to  a  five-year  ADSC;  he 
would  have  turned down training had  he been  given  the choice.  Not 
one B-2  pilot  to date has formally accepted a five-year ADSC  before 
entering  training.  He  was  not  alone  in  his  understanding  of  the 
commitment for B- 2  training. 

Applicant  further  states  that  the  HQ  AFPC/DPPRS  advisory  opinion 
challenges  some  of  the  evidence  he  presented  in  his  initial 
package.  However,  he  retracts  nothing  from  his  initial  package. 
He  will  now  provide  further  information  that  will  prove  his 
position  and  further  comment  on  the manner  in which  the Air  Force 
has  handled  this  issue. 
His  presentation  is  divided  into  seven 
categories  (I through  VII)  and  ends  with  closing  comments  (VIII). 
He  will  use  the  word  “They”  when  referring  to  HQ  AFPC/DPPRS. 
Incidentally, he  is a  captain -  not a major  as referenced  17 times 
in their memorandum.  Applicant‘s complete statement is included as 
Exhibit G with Attachments  1 through 2 2 .  
Applicant’s counsel  states, in part,  that  the Air  Force appears  on 
the  verge  of  serious  legal  and  public  errors  with  the  ADSC  of 
applicant  and  several  other  B-2  pilots.  It  appears  crystal  clear 
that  applicant  w o u l d   have  rejected  the B-2  assignment/training had 
he known of a  five-year ADSC.  This is especially so because  he has 
a learning-challenged  child; he was  already at Whiteman AFB  and he 
knew it might  be  difficult  to  nurture  his  child  in  the  relatively 
rural  local  school  system.  Why  would  he  com.it to  a  situation 
which might prove harmful to his family? 

As  applicant’s  advocate,  he  calls  particular  attention  to  the 
following ten points: 

a.  Applicant  is suddenly being  told  he  owes  three more  years 
to the Air  Force.  This is personnel‘s novel, new stand despite the 

3 

AFBCMR  98-00605 

fact that  the  system failed and AFPC  then unilaterally  changed  the 
ground rules. 

(1)  In the old system:  [I] counseling was mandatory;  and 
[2] it was reflected in a Form 63 to memorialize  a  clear and mutual 
understanding of any ADSC.  Under the new system, transfer to a new 
assignment  means  that  the  member  tacitly  accepts  whatever 
AFPC 
undocumented  ADSC  AFPC  maintains  is  associated  with  it. 
apparently  insists  this  is  true  even  if the  system  totally  misled 
the member! 

(2)  This  is  blatantly  switching  legal  and  personnel 
Applicant  is  clearly  right  -  the  Air  Force 
horses  midstream. 
cannot  unilaterally  violate  its  own  regulatory  obligation  to 
counsel him; and it cannot abandon time-honored procedures  to reach 
a mutual  agreement as to his time commitment. 

b.  The  Air  Force  apparently  admits  violating  its  own 
regulations  by  not  counseling  or  otherwise  advising  applicant  of 
any  ADSC  associated  with  the  B-2  program -  specifically  or 
generally. 

exercised 

due 

asking 

c.  Applicant 

MPF 
professionals  about  his  ADSC.  He  was  advised  that  his  ADSC  would 
be  two years after  a PCS  -  nothing more.  He  relled  on tnat.  Now, 
in an abrupt change, AFPC  is embracing  a new  dogI-a.  Any  objective 
review  shows  that  the  established  doctrine  was  consistent  and 
universal;  under  it,  applicant  obviously  had  to  sign  a  Form  63 to 
establish  his  commitment. 
canon  is 
dismissed as mere surplusage. 

Now,  that  long-s:anding 

diligence  by 

d.  By any fair reading, applicant elected  ts come z 
on  the  stated  ADSCs  for  the  assignment.  To  reFsat  for 
he  was  counseled that he  had  voluntarily agreed  z 3  a  th,= 
for his  PCS.  The Air  Force  now  seeks  to  unilaterally  c n  
agreement  by  imposing  a  five-year  ADSC  -  an  ACSC  whiz-: 
AFB’s MPF advised applicant did not exist. 

(1)  Applicant  then  based  his  decision  to  lea-;e  on  that 
selfsame ADSC data.  The captain is an honorable -an  -  he would not 
try  transitioning  to civilian  life if he  had  ani- inklirg  that  his 
expected  separation  would  be  denied  under  new  one-siced  rules, 
changed by a fickle Air Force. 

e.  Applicant‘s  interpretation  of  the  A 3 S C  

mirrors  the 
understanding  of  all  of  his  peer  group.  Among  applicant  and  the 
other  15  B-2  pilots  interviewed,  everyone  held  ’LE!  this  viewy;oint. 
Can the Air  Force seriously contend that 16 of its brighz young B- 2 
pilots are hamming or “playing dumb”? 

through and the iLfh Air  Force  CC, General  “F” -  all  a?parencly  had  the 

f.  Applicant‘s  MPF and supervisors all believed  that  the “old 
This  was  so  up 

clear  procedures  were  mandatory. 

same misunderstanding. 

4 

AFBCt.13  9 8 -0 C 6 0 5 

g.  AFPC‘s  position  cannot  pass  the  \\say it  with  a  straight 
face“ test.  A  five-year ADSC?  With no documentation?  Not  one B- 2 
pilot  to  date  has  formally  accepted  a  five-year  ADSC  before 
entering training! 

h.  Embarrassingly,  AFPC  can’t  even  get  straight  what 
applicant’s ADSC  is.  AFPC  first  sought  to  impose  a  two-year ADSC 
for  the  B- 2  IQT,  then  a  five-year  commitment  . . .  and  now,  it 
apparently mandates  a three-year commitment.  Applicant’s purported 
ADSC  date  has  no  rational  relationship  to  anything  in  his 
professional  career. 

i.  No  one  is  above  the  law -  but  nobody  is below  it  either. 
From  all  reports,  another  B-2  pilot  has  successfully won  release. 
His  professional  situation  is  precisely  the  same  as  that  of 
applicant.  If  anything,  applicant‘s family  difficulties  [a child 
with Attention Deficit Disorder] make  his case even more persuasive 
than  that  of  the  second pilot.  Yet  the  other  pilot  is  allowed  to 
go  . . .  and applicant is not. 

j.  There is the serious matter of miscounseling.  AFI  36-2107 
That 
procedures  were  never  remotely  followed  in  this  case. 
instruction  has  the  force  of  law.  It  requires  the  Air  Force  to 
counsel  officers  about  AFSC  [sic] -incurring  events.  That  insures 
that ADSCs are voluntarily, knowingly established. 

Counsel  further  states  that  if  the  Air  Force  advisory  stands,  it 
will  amount  to a  unilateral Air  Force action  to  illegally  force an 
additional  commitment  upon  applicant.  Thus,  he  becomes  much  like 
the  “indentured  servant” of  colonial times.  This  result  is unwise 
and  unjust  for  several  reasons.  For  the  family  of  applicant,  it 
will  mean  severe  hardship. 
For  Air  Force  leadership  in  an  era 
where  credibility  problems  are  rampant  -  especially  in  aviator 
ranks  -  it  will  present  a  grievous  breach  of  faith. 
For  the 
public,  it  will  reveal  USAF  ineptitude . . .   j u s t  
when  the 
establishment  hopes  that  Kelly  Flynn-type  cases  are  passing  from 
public consciousness. 

Clearly,  applicant  inquired  over  and  over  again  about  any 
commitments  involved  in the B- 2  program.  Nowhere  was  he  counseled 
or  otherwise  notified  of  an  ADSC  other  than  that  associated  with 
his  PCS.  As  he  shared  fellowship  with  other  B- 2  pilots,  no  one 
mentioned  counseling,  no  one  mentioned  an  additional  ADSC.  As  a 
matter  of fact, when  the issue surfaced, applicant’s wing  commander 
stood  with  him.  It  was  only  when  more  senior  leadership  imposed 
doctrinal discipline that the Whiteman AFB  command reneged  on their 
original support. 

From  discussions  with  other  attorneys  specializing  in  military 
administrative  law,  it  appears  clear  that  several  AQSC  cases  are 
Based  on  precedent#  it  is 
ripe  for  the  media  and  the  courts. 
likely  that  the  Air  Force  will  lose  those  cases  due  EO 
dis-information  to  its members.  See, for example,  Pznce  v. B r o w n ,  

5 

AFBCMR  9 E - 0 0 6 0 5  

627  F.2d  892  (8th Cir.  1980); Brown  v.  D u n l e a v y ,   722  F.Supp.  1343 
(E.D.  Va.  1989);  W i t h u m   v.  O‘Connor,  506  F.Supp.  1374  ( D . P . R .  
1981). 

Moreover,  it  appears  to  be  common  knowledge  that  senior  AFBCMR 
members  and  staff  are  routinely  briefed  by  AFPC  on  issues  of 
contemporary  importance. 
It  is  likely  that  such  ex  parte 
discussion  occurred  in  these  cases.  That  might  explain  how -  on 
equal  facts -  some  applicants  are  successful,  yet  others  have 
failed. 

Finally, a few words about morale.  Why the Air  Force seeks to keep 
its  sophisticated  B-2  manned  by  personnel  who  “want  out”  is  a 
mystery.  Whatever  the  rationale,  one  thing  is  clear:  Air  Force 
errors  with  ADSCs  come  at  a  bad  time -  pilot  retention  is  at  a 
crucial  low.  However,  morale  is  not  enhanced  by  “hanging  tough” 
with  these young pilots.  There are a variety  of  solid, legitimate 
ways  for  the  Air  Force  to  resolve  its  pilot  hemorrhage. 
Shanghaiing applicant is not one of them. 

conclusion, 

In 
applicant -  and 
others -  obviously  plan  to  resist  their  continued,  compulsory 
military  service  by  all  legitimate  means,  including  ehe  judicial 
process  (Exhibit H) . 

counsel 

states 

that 

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  h a s   been  presented  to  demonstrate 
the  existence  of  either  an  error  or  an  injustice  warranting 
favorabie  action  on  the  applicant’s  request.  Applicant  contends 
that  at  no  time  during  the  application  process,  interview, 
selection  notification,  PCS  out-processing,  PCS  in-processing, 
course  introduction,  and  course  completion  was  there  any  mention 
of,  counseling  on,  or  signing  of  anything  in  connection  with  an 
ADSC  for 3-2 IQT; and  that this  is evidenced  by  the absence of any 
supporting  documentation,  such  as  an  AF  Form  63  or  Statement  of 
Understanding,  and  the  written  and  verbally  admitted  lack  of  any 
B-2  IQT  ADSC  process  by  squadron,  operations  group,  and  wing 
supervisors.  Lastly, the applicant asserts that he never agreed to 
a  five-year  ADSC  and  would  have  turned  down  the  training  had  he 
been given the choice.  He a l s o   adds that not one B- 2  pilot  to date 
has  formally accepted a five-year ADSC before entering 5-2 IQT. 

4.  HQ AFPC/DPPRS admits that proper counseling procedures were not 
followed  in  this  case.  However,  i~  is  believed  the  burden  is  on 
the  applicant  to  prove  that  he  unwittingly  incurred  an  ADSC  for 
training  he  would  not  have  accepted  had  he  been  aware  df  t h e   ADSC 

6 

AFBCMR  98-CO605 

prior to entering the training.  It is noted that the applicant has 
an extensive history of volunteering  for and accepting training  and 
the associated  ADSCs  for training  in several aircraft  systems.  In 
his  case  specifically,  the  issue  is  whether  an  officer  as 
experienced  as he  is in receiving ADSCs  for  flying training,  truly 
unwittingly  incurred  an ADSC  which  he  would  not  have  been  willing 
to  accept  had  he  been  completely  and  timely  advised  of  the  ADSC. 
If  the ADSC  was  in  fact  a weighing  factor  in  applicant's  decision 
to accept  training, HQ AFPC/DPPRS  argues  that he  could easily have 
referred  to  the  appropriate  AFI.  Lastly,  that  office  believes  it 
is  inconceivable  that,  given  his  history  of  voluntarily  attending 
flying  training  courses  and  accepting  their  associated  ADSCs,  he 
would  not  understand  that  IQT  in  the  Air  Force's  newest  and  most 
advanced bomber  carried with  it an ADSC  that was  at  the very  least 
comparable  to  the previous  IQT  courses  he  completed.  His  alleged 
concern  over  the  length  of  the  commitment  associated  with  this 
training should have awakened his professional obligation to pursue 
the matter  further. 

5.  We  agree with  HQ A F P C / D P P R S   that  if it can be  established  that 
an  officer  was  aware of  an ADSC  and  completed  the  training  rather 
than  exercising  the  7-day  option  to  separate,  the  officer,  in 
effect, has voluntarily  incurred the ADSC.  Had this been the case, 
we  may  have  reached  a  different  result. 
However,  according  to 
statements  from  the  applicant's  squadron  commander,  operations 
group  commander, B-2  IQT classmates and  a host  of officers who  had 
previously  completed the training,  the understanding  was  that there 
was only a two-year PCS service commitment involved.  We note, too, 
that  when  the  applicant  was  eventually  properly  counseled  by  his 
MPF  of  the  five-year  B- 2  ADSC,  he  declined  the  training  and 
attempted  to  separate  under  the  7-day  option  policy.  Because  he 
was  not  counseled  in  advance  and  had  completed  the  training, 
however,  he  no  longer  had  the  option  of  separating  rather  than 
incurring the ADSC 

6.  It  is  incredulous  that  such  a  crucial  requirement  as  advance 
counseling  of  the  ADSC  could  have  been  overlooked  by  AFPC,  the 
gaining  and  losing  MPFs,  and  the  superior  officers  closely 
associated  with  the  B-2  I Q T .  
However,  the  preponderance  of  the 
evidence  before  us  suggests  this  to  be  the  case. 
Given  the 
applicant's  previous  experience  with  ADSC-incurring  events,  one 
could  still  argue  (as AFPC  does)  that  the  applicant  should  have 
felt  an  obligation  to  seek  out  information  from  an  authoritative 
source;  i.e.,  the  governing  A F T .  
On  the  other  hand,  after 
inquiring with  a number of officers who  should have  known the ADSC 
and,  more  significantly,  the  offices  that  had  a  regulatory 
responsibility  to  properly  counsel  him, we  do  nor  believe  that  it 
is  unreasonable  for  the  applicant  to  have  relied  on  the  assertion 
of  only  a  two-year  PCS  ADSC  from  official  sources  notwithstanding 
his  prior  experience  with  ADSC-incurring  events.  This  belief  is 
supported  by  the  fact  that,  in  apparent  recognition  of  the 
widespread  miscounseling  concerning  the  B-2  I Q T  
the 
Operations  Group  Commander  at  the  training  site  indicated  to  the 
former  AFPC/DPPRS  advisory  writer  that  he  was  preparinq' a  package 

A D S C ,  

7 

AFBCMR  98-00605 

to  submit  through  command  channels  recommending  deletion  of  the 
five-year ADSC for classes 1-10  (See Attachment  19 to Exhibit G). 
7.  We will never be certain that the misinformation concerning the 
B-2  IQT  ADSC  caused  the  applicant  to  make  a  decision  to  his 
detriment  at  the  time. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  evidence  is 
overwhelming  that  he  was  not  counseled  in  advance  and  given  the 
opportunity to voluntarily incur the five-year ADSC as contemplated 
Therefore,  in  the  absence  of  clear-cut 
by  Air  Force  policy. 
evidence  to  the  contrary,  we  believe  that  the  applicant  has 
sustained  his  burden  of  establishing  the  existence  of  either  an 
error or an injustice warranting  favorable action on his request. 

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: 

The pertinent  military  records  of  the  Department  of  the Air  Force 
relating  to  APPLICANT,  be  corrected  to  show  that  the  five-year 
Active  Duty  Service  Commitment  ( A D S C )   incurred  as  a  result  of 
completion  of B-2  Initial Qualification  Training  (IQT) be  declared 
void. 

_~I_--_______I________-_________-- 

The  following members  of  the  Board  considered  this  application  in 
Executive Session on 30 October 1998 and  6 November  1998, under  the 
provisions of AFI  36-2603: 

Mr. Benedict A. Kausal  IV, Panel Chair 
Mr. Charles E. Bennett, Member 
Mr. Henry Romo Jr., Member 

All  members  voted  to  correct  the  records  as  rezommended. 
following documentary evidence was considered: 

The 

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 2 Feb 98, with -l-ttachments. 
Exhibit B.  Microfiche Copy of ApplicanE's Maszer  Personnel 

Records. 

Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated  15 J u r   98, with 
Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 29 Jun 98. 

Attachments. 

8 

-4 FBCMR  3 S - 0 0 6 0 5 

Exhibit E. 
Exhibit F. 
Exhibit G. 

Exhibit H. 

Letter from Applicant, 
Letter from AFBCMR, dated 29 Jul 98. 
Letter from Applicant, dated 12 Sep 98, with 
Attachments. 
Letter from Counsel, dated 15 Sep 98. 

dated 20 Jul 98. 

Panel Chair 

9 

AFBCMR  98-00605 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

HEADQUARTERS AIR FORCE PERSONNEL CENTER 

RANDOLPH AIR FORCE BASE TEXAS 

K.5  JUN 1998 

MEMORANDUM FOR  AFBCMR 

FROM:  HQ AFPCDPPRS 

550 C St West, Ste 11 
Randolph AFB TX 78 150-47 13 

SUBJECT:  Application for Correction of Military Records- 

Requested Actiorr.l(llrequests 

that all information relating to any Active Duty 

Service Commitment (ADSC) associated with B-2 Initial Qualification Training (IQT) be 
removed from his record.  He further asks that his commitment for Undergraduate Pilot Training 
(UPT) be reinstated as his binding commitment, which expires 15 May 98. 

claims that “At no time during the application process, 
interview, selection notification, PCS outprocessing, PCS inprocessing, course introduction, 
course completion was there any mention of, counseling on, or signing of anything in connection 
with an ADSC for B-2 IQT.  This is evidenced by the absence of any supporting documentation, 
such as an AF Form 63 or Statement of Understanding, and the written and verbally admitted 
lack of any B-2 IQT ADSC process by squadron, operations group, and wing supervisors.  The 
2-year ADSC for PCS was and is the only known and accepted commitment for the assignment.” 

FACTS: 

a.  The Air Force routinely assigns active duty service commitments (ADSCs) to 
officers as a result of training IAW AFI 36-2107 (ADSC and Specified Period of Time Contracts 
(SPTC), dated 6 Jul 94), para 1.1 (Atch 1).  This not only provides for projections of future 
manning availability, but also ensures the American taxpayers are receiving a return for the 
investment they make in training Air Force officers. 

b.  Air Force policy is that officers receive these ADSCs voluntarily; if they are 

unwilling to accept the ADSC, they are to elect separation from the Air Force  in lieu of 
undergoing the training.  Officers are normally advised of these ADSCs in writing and their 
acknowledgment of their understanding and acceptance of the ADSC is normally documented in 
writing, on AF Form 63 (ADSC Counseling Statement). Occasionally, this procedure is not 
followed in exact accordance with delineated procedures.  In those cases, the Air Force still 
awards the ADSC, as the vast majority have been incurred with the officer’s full understanding 
and willing acceptance.  The onus is on the officer to prove that he unwittingly incurred an 

2 

ADSC for training he would not have accepted had he been aware of the ADSC prior to entering 
the training. 

c.  In August 1997, AFPC discovered an Air Force Training Management System 
database error for several ADSCs, including the B-2 IQT, and immediately initiated the systems 
fix to update the correct ADSCs--in the case of B-2 IQT, 5 years from course graduation date. 
This discovery originated in part with HQ Air Combat Command’s (ACC) discovery that the 
records of B-2 IQT graduates were not being updated with the 5 year ADSCs they were incurring 
for the training.  At that time, ACC requested AFPC to update 5 year ADSCs for the most recent 
B-2 IQT class.-record 
was affected by this update.  This update properly set his 
ADSC out to 22 Dec 2001.  (Note:  As a result of human error, the 5 year ADSC was initially 
mistakenly added to a future graduation date--Dec 97--instead of the actual class graduation date, 
according to the AF Training Management System, of 23 Dec 96.  This mistake was corrected 
upon discovery several weeks later.) 

L 

DISCUSSION : 

tates that nowhere in the process of his selection for and 
IQT was he briefed on the proper ADSC he would incur for this 
rocedures were not followed in his case.  However, as 
o prove that he unwittingly incurred an ADSC for 
e been aware of the ADSC prior to entering the 
ry of volunteering for and accepting training, and the 

associated ADSCs for training in several aircraft systems.  In his case specifically, the issue is 
whether an officer as experienced as he is in receiving ADSCs for flying training, truly 
unwittingly incurred an ADSC which he would not have been willing to accept had he been 
completely and timely advised of the ADSC. 

claims that at the time he volunteered for retraining into the B-2, he 
ncur the 2 year ADSC for the PCS assignment associated with the 
that he would not have accepted the assignment to 
DSC.  If the ADSC was in fact a weighing factor in 
ould have easily referred to AFI 36-2107 to see that it 
n aircraft as 5 years.  It is inconceivable that given his 

was told that he 
retraining.  Notably, nowher 
B-2, had he had knowledge o 
his decision to accept training 
clearly states the commitment 
history of voluntarily attending flying training courses and accepting their associated ADSCs, 
that he would not understand that IQT in the Air Force’s newest and most advanced bomber 
carried with it an ADSC that was at the very least comparable to the previous IQT courses he 
completed.  His alleged concern over the length of the commitment associated with this training 
should have awakened his professional obligation to pursue the matter further; a little research 
into the AF Instruction in effect at the time (AFI 36-2701, Table 1.5, Rule 1, dated 6 Jul94) 
would have revealed it plainly stated the commitment for initial qualification in an aircraft as 5 
years.  (Atch 2)  This instruction was (and still is today) published.for use Air Force-wide and 
was readily available for his review at the time. 

3 
mplies his wing leadership’s position on the B-2 
DSCs for pilots through IQT class 10.” 

c.  In his application, 

IQT ADSC as, “there would be no 
However, contrary to -belief, 
Wing, was not in favor of removing or adjusting the B-2 ADSCs.  In fact, in a 27 

Brig Gen Gosh, then commander of the 509‘h Bomb 

Personnel Council concerning the separation request of another B 
ated emphatically that he “...did not prepare and forward a paper t 

[Commander, ACC] on B-2 ADSCs.”  Additionally, he indicates in that same letter that 
“...because of the resources spent training these individuals, and since the 509Ih Bomb Wing is a 
growing unit and these officers were part of the personnel plan to have a complete crew force in 
place when the-fulLforce ,$ucture was delivered in the year 2000, I recommended upholding an 
ADSC enforced from the date they completed B-2 qualification training.”  (Atch 3) 

d.  The fact of the matter is,-volunteered 

for retraininginto this new 
bomber aircraft to hold that distinction of becoming a part of the initial cadre to carry the B-2 
force through the year 2000.  It is obvious this ADSC did not become an issue until well after he 
had completed training and began considering employment outside the Air Force.  By virtue of 
voluntarily completing the B-2 IQT course- 
associated ADSC (AFI 36-2701 , para 1.1). 

in effect voluntarily incurred the 

..  , . 
e.  Lastly, 

introduces the fact that he has simultaneously applied for 

ecretary of the Air Force’s decision on this matter, and it 

separation.  We have receive 
clearly supports our position of holdin 
for B-2 IQT.  In a letter dated 7 Apr 98, the Secretary of the Air Force stated, “that the 
resignation of this officer prior to completion of his active duty service commitments (ADSCs) is 
not considered to be in the best interest of the Air Force at this time,” and declined to a c c e e  
w g n a t

i o n  and request for separation.  (Atch 4) 

responsible for serving his complete ADSC 

RECOMMENDATION:  Denial 

a.  We believe the awareness of the association of ADSCs with flying training is 
previous experience of receiving ADSCs 
training fully aware that he would receive 
have turned down training had he 

so commonplace that, particularly giv 
for flying training, he volunteered fo 
an ADSC.  Again, nowhere does he s 
“knkvn” about the 5 year ADSC: 

b.  The presumption o 

s foreknowledge of the ADSC and his 
completion of the training rather than opting for separation from the Air Force in lieu of 
attending training, constitute his tacit acceptance of the ADSC, and overcome the absence of 
formal documentation of his acceptance of the ADSC. 

c.  We can detect no significant harm which he has experienced or will experience 

as a result of serving his legitimate commitment. We do not consider a deferred opportunity to 
seek post-Air Force employment significant harm or hardship, as member will undoubtedly 
claim.  Moreover, given the Air Force’s critical need for experienced pilots--especially in a new 

4 

weapons system--it is of vital importance to the Air Force mission to retain his services for the 
full tenure of his ADSC. 
,+,.**. 

,*  1.n.. 

corrected to show 

d.  However,"'if the decision is to grant the relief sought, the record should be 
st binding ADSC as 15 May 98, for Undergraduate Flying 
plication.  HQ AFPCDPPRS can correct the personnel data 

application is approved. 

e.  If you have any questions concerning the ADSC, POC is TSgt Pullen, HQ 

AFPCDPPRS, DSN 487-5622 

Assistant Chief, Ssparations Branch 
Directorate Personnel Program Management 

Attachments: 
1.  AFI 36-2107, para 1.1 
2.  AFI 36-2107, Table 1.5, Rule 1 
3.  509 BWKC Letter, 27 Mar 98 
4.  SECAF Personnel Council Decision Ltr, 

7 Apr 98 

.

.

 

. .  * 

2 

AFI 36-2107 

6 Jufy 1994 

Restrictions on Using SPTC ............................................................................................................................... 
Applying for a SPTC ......... ............................................................................................................................... 
Section B-Responsibilih'rs 
Commander ....................................................................................................................................................... 
MPF Personnel; ................................................................................................................................................. 
MAJCOMs ........................................................................................................................................................ 
AFMPC ............................................................................................................................................................. 

Forms Prescribtd 
AF Form 63.  Officer Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) Counseling Statement ........................................ 
AF Form 161. Airman Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) Counselhg Statemed ...................................... 
AF Form 233. Specified Period of Time Contract (SPTC) ...................................................................................... 

Tables 
1.1.  Extended Active Duty (EAD) ADSC ............................................................................................................... 
1.2.  EAD ADSCs for Prehealth Professions Program (AFROTC Cadets) .............................................................. 
1.3.  ADSC for DoD-Sponsored Basic Health Education Training .......................................................................... 
1.4.  Undergraduate Flying Training 0 ADSCs ................................................................................................ 
1.5.  Advanced Flying Training ADSCs ................................................................................................................... 
1.6.  Education ADSCs .............................................................................................................................................. 
1.7.  Training ADSCs ............................................................................................................................................... 
1.8.  ADSC After Withdrawal or Elimination From Education or Training ............................................................. 
.( ......................................................... 
1.9.  Permanent Change of Station (PCS) ADSCs .......................................... 
1.10.  Officers of  the Medical Services. Health. and Health Related Education and Training ADSCs .................... 
1.1 1 . ADSC for Accepting Continuation Pay or Special Pay .................................................................................. 
1.1 2 . Special ADSC Incumng Programs for Officers ............................................................................................. 
1.13.  Airman ADSCs for Promotion ....................................................................................................................... 
1.14.  Airman ADSCs for Training or Education .............................. 
....................................................................... 
1.15.  ADSCs for AF Reserve Officer Training Corps ( A h O K )  Contract Violators ........................................... 
2.1.  SF'TC Processing Procedures for Line of the Air Force Officers ..................................................................... 
2.2.  SPTC Processing Procedures for Judge Advocate qnd Chaplains ..................................................................... 
2.3.  SPTC Processing Procedures for Medical Service Officers ............................................................................. 
Attachment 
1 . Glossary of References. Abbreviations. Acronyms. Terms. and Addresses ........................................................ 

Paragraph 

2.2 
2.3 

2.4 
2.5 
2.6 
2.7 

1.3.1 
1.3.1 
2.3 

Page 

5 
6 
7 
9 
10 
13 
19 
22 
24 
25 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
48 
49 
so 

52 

Chapter 1 

ACTIVE DUTY SERVICE COMMITMENT (ADSC) 

Section A.. Program Elements 
1.1.  Incurring an ADSC . You incur an ADSC when you 
are selecfedfor and complete an ADSC-incurring event: 
A pem'anent change of station (PCS) '. 
Completion of an education or traigng course . 
Promotion to the grades of captain through colonel. 
except in  h e  Medical or Dental Corps . 
1.2.  Determining What Is nn  ADSC-Incurring Event . 
AFMPC.  MAJCOMs.  or commanders may . select you for 
an ADSC-kumng event . You can also select yourself if 

. 

you  elect  to  use  tuition  assistance.  the  Minuteman 
Education  Program  (MMEP).  or 
the  Missile  Crew 
cation (officers only) . 
Member Education Program  (MCMEP)  for off-duty edu- 
1.3.  Counseling  on  ADSCs .  The  military  personnel 
flight (MPF) or the director of personnel education (DPE) 
counsels you on the commitment you will incur . 
1.3.1.  You then complete an AF Form 63. Officer  Active 
Duty  Servke  ~ornrnitment  (ADSC)  Counseling 
Statement / 

. an  AF  Form  161.  Airman  Active  Duly 

.. 

ICtraining is (see notes 1 
and 2) 
initial qualification in an 
aircraft and all initial 
qualification training in 
helicopter systems (except as 
listed in rules 7, 8.9,  10, 12, 
13 and  14) 

fied-wing Qualification 
test pilot or test navigator 
COUKC 
USAF weapons school (see 
note 3) 
requalification in an aircraft 
(except as listed in rules 15, 
16, I7,.and  18) 
rcqua1ificatiodI-X training in 
fighter weapon system group 
sircraft (see note 4) 
AETC initial pilot instructor 
training (PIT), in-unit 
requalification for T-34, T-37 
and T-38, AT-38, T-43, T-44, 
r-1, and T-2 pilot 
hitiaVrequali fication 
raining, in-unit 
rqualificatiodiitial 
iavigator instntctor training 
n T-43, and electronic 
~ a r f a r c  officer (EWO) 
raining COUKC  (see note 5 )  
nitial nonmajor airlift 
veapon system training (C-9, 
2-12, c-20, c-21, (2-22, c- 
!3, C-25, C-26, C-27, C-29, 
>32,  VC-32, C-37, c/wc/ 
IC- 135, CNC-137,  C-140, 
r-39, CASA 212) (see note 

rois-training from MY  non- 
ighter major weapon system 
MWS) (KC-135, KC-IO, 
32-135,  RC-13S,  E-3, E-4, 
:-8,  C-S, (2-141,  C-130, EC- 
30, HC-130, MC-130, AC-, 
30, C-17, B-I, B-S2, B-2, 
J-2, W I N ,  MH53J and 
HH60G) to another non- 
fighter MWS 

' 

E 

thb  ADS1 
use 
statement  on  th 
A F  Form 63 
"5,3,2,  or  1 
year(s)  from 
completion for 
(COURSE-ID)". 

L 

D 

and supporting 
documenk arc 
any official document 
bearing the date 
training was completed 
such as certificate, 
special orders, training 
report, or AF Form 63 
(or similar document) 

and ADSC 
Code is 
os 

04 
DS 

\ 

nin&ADSCe( 

B 

then ADSC b 
5 yean 

3 yean 

(Table continued on next page) 

-- 

B 

~~ 

C 

D 

then ADSC iS 

and supporting 
documents are 

and ADSC 
Code Is 

E 

use this ADSC 
statement on 
the AF Form 63 

. .  

I 

I 

1 

If training is (see notes 1 
and2) 

A 

I Table 1.5.  Continued. 
'R 
U 
L 
E 
- 
10 
- 
11 

3 years 

2 yean 

. 

14 

15 

16 

17 

- 
13 

- 
12 

initial qualification training 
in u-2 . 
qualification (upgrade or 
mission) in current aircraft 
(IP,  AC, etc.)  (Except as 
listed in rule  19) 
initial qualification training 
conducted in Air Force 
Material Command (AFMC) 
initial qualification training 
conducted at US Air Force 
Academy (USAFA) in TG-7, 
W-18, and T-43 (Navigator 
only) 
initial qualification training 
inT-41 orT-3 
requalification training in T- 
41 or T-3 
requalification training 
conducted in Air Force 
. 
Material Command (AFMC) 
in-unit qualification training 
conducted in Air Force 
Material Command (AFMC) 
for T-37, T-38, T-39. U-6, 
W - 1 8  
requalification training 
conducted at US Air Force 
Academy (USAFA) in TG-7;' 
UV-I 8, and T-43 (Navigator 
only) 
instructor upgrade training 
conducted atUS Air Force  * 
Academy (USAFA) in W -  
- 
18 
other than specified in rules 
20 
1 thn! 19 (see note 7) 

19 

18 

. 

1 year 

determined by 
AFPU 
DPPRP 

(Notes to table continued on next page) 

1~&-30-1998  09 : 50 

* -  _-  . 

a 

589MJ COMMRND  SECTION 

P. 02 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 
HEADQUARTERS SOOTH BOMB WING (ACC) 
WHITEMAN AIR FORCE BASE, MISSOURI 

2  7  MAR  IS98 

MEMORANDUM FOR SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL 

FROM:  SO9 BW/CC 

509 SPIRIT BLVD, STE SO9 
WHITEMAN AFB MO 65305-5055 

SUBJECT: Separation Request of T. 

. _  

request for separation in August 1997. I asked my MPF 
1.  1 received  I- 
had an ADSC.  I was informed that he did and that it would expire on 2 February 
if' 
1998.  Based on this information, I recommended approval of his request for separation effective 
3 February 1998. 

-- 

2.  In the following weeks, it came to my attention that there was a problem with ADSCs not 
being conectly processed for 13-2 qualification training.  The problem was raised with ACC and 
AFPC and it was found to be much more widespread than just the B-2 community. 
Subsequently, since AFI 36-2107 and its predecessor, AFR 36-5 1,  have been in effect for many 
years and pilots have always known that ADSCs come with f o m d  flying training, the Air Force 
has taken a position that all pilots who have ever received, or are receiving, B-2 qualification 
training havc an ADSC. The length of that commitment depends on whether thcy rcccivcd 
tnining before 3 August 1997, in which case it is five years, or after, in which case it is three 
years. 
3.  Tf 
ACC/DP informed me about the widespread problem with the ADSCs, I would have 
recommended disapproval.  Since then, there have been three other B-2 pilots who have 
requested separation nnd I have recommended disapproval.  My recommendation for disapproval 
is based on the Air Force position that B-2 pilots incurred an ADSC for their B-2 training. 
Additionally, because of the resources spent training these individuals, and since the 509th Bomb 
Wing is a growing unit and these officers were part of the personnel plan to have a complete 
crew force in place when the full force structure W;LS delivered by the year 2000, I recdmmcnded 
upholding an ADSC enforced from the date they completed B-2 qualification training. 

had brought his request for separation to me for my recommendation after 

4. 

provided a copy of a letter he sent to the 

, Three of the points raised by  * 
incorrect.  ~ t . ' f i f ~ ~ r i ~ p ~ i r a p ~ ~ ~ s e n t c n c ~ , S ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ o r b e c a ~ f s ~ , I b ~ d ~ ~ - n o ~  
,apaper- to~General.Hawley~on-B~2~ADSGs~Second, 
opinion and not supported by  any empirical data  And third, paragraph 7, sentence 2, the Air 
Force h3s not disregarded my agreements with 

in his letter are 
prepa.rean&fomd-+- 

paragraph 5, sentence 7, is 

I 

. 

,. 

_ -

 

. -  

Global Power for America 

P.83 

has 

5.  In closing, I am responding at this time because, since January 1998, 
communicated to me djrcctly that he was still considering rcmaining in thc Air Force.  (Because 
ofthis, I personally requested that AFPC hold on the processing of 
papenvork,  in an effort to allow him the appropriate time to make a final decision.)  Additionally, 
he l i s  told me that he wanted to at least remain on active duty until the completion of a n~iclcar 
ORI in June 1998.  At thc bcginning of March 1998, I counseled 
*  that thc wing was 
forecasting the operations leadership personnel line-up for the post ’98 summer PCS cycle and 
that I had to know his final dccision so that I knew who would be positively available.  On 26 
Mar 1998, 
informed rhe 509 OG/CC he wished IO pursue a request for separation zs 
early as possible.  Accordingly, 1 now recommend disapproval of his request to separate prior to 
completion of his ADSC for B-2 IQT. 

separation 

Sincerely 

C o m  and er 

v 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Office of the Assistant Secretary 

7 APR  1998 

A C T I O N  

of the 

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE 

The  Secretary of  the Air 

tendered  on January 30,  1998 by 
the separation date requested. 

ion 
for 

The  Secretary has  determined  that  the  resignation  of  this  officer 
prior to completion of his active duty service commitments (ADSCs) is not 
considered to be in the best interest of the Air Force at this time. 

Colonel, USAF 
Deputy Director 

SAF .Personnel Council