* 

* 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY R E c n R n s  

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

COUNSEL:  NONE 

HEARING DESIRED: NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

His  Active  Duty  Service  Commitment  (ADSC)  of  five  years  for 
crossflow from the C-141 be changed to three years. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

He  was  told  and  was  given  supporting  documentation  that  his 
commitment for KC-10 training would be three years. 

He  states,  in  part,  that  prior  to  his  accepting  a  crossflow 
assignment, he was  informed by  crossflow program  admiristrators  at 
HQ  AMC/DPOA  and  formal  training  personnel  that  the  ADSC  for 
crossflow from the C-141 to the KC-10 was  three years; that AMC/DP 
referred him to Air Force Instruction  (AFI) 36-2107 which indicated 
a three-year ADSC  for cross training  from airlift  to airlift Major 
Weapon Systems  (MWS); that he was assured the AFI was being changed 
to read  "air  mobility  to air mobility" MWS  (to include the  KC-10s 
and KC-135s). 

Applicant  further  states  that  his  point  of  contact  5,uring  these 
conversations  was  a  Captain  "A"  (HQ AFPC/DPOA) . 
Bzsed  on  this 
information, he accepted the assignment  for crossflow to the KC-10. 
However,  during  his  processing  through  the  Military  Personnel 
Flight  (MPF) at Travis AFB, he was not briefed  that he would incur 
a  five-year  ADSC  for  crossflow.  At  that  time,  he  was  presented 
with  a  training  computer  "rip" which  listed  the  dates  of  training 
and  the  class  number. 
Combined  with  the  information  he  had 
received  from his  MAJCOM  resource  advisors  and  the  information  he 
received  from correspondence between  HQ AMC/DPP  and  HQ AMC/DOT,  he 
believed he still had a three-year ADSC.  Finally, HQ AFPC  recently 
implemented  formal  changes  to  the  crossflow  program  requiring  a 
three-year  ADSC  rather  than  five years.  This  action  corrects  the 
erroneous five-year ADSC.  For this reason, he  requests his records 
be  corrected to reflect a three-year  commitment  as oppsed to  f i v e  
years. 

Applicant's  statement and documentary evidence submitted in support 
of  his  application  are  included  as  Exhibit  A  with  ALtachments  1 
through 5. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

Applicant,  a major,  completed  Initial Qualification  Training  (IQT) 
in the KC-10  on 25  December  1996 and  incurred a  five-year ADSC  of 
24 December 2001. 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

HQ  AFPC/DPPRS  recommends  that  the  application  be  denied. 
That 
office  sets  forth  the  reason  for  the  establishment  of  ADSCs  and 
advises that 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  ADSC  for  training  he  would  not  have 
accepted  had  he  been  aware  of  the  ADSC  prior  to  entering  the 
training.  While  documentation  of  the  officer’s  awareness  of  the 
ADSC  provides  positive  proof  the  counseling  was  accomplished  in a 
timely manner  and the officer voluntarily  accepted the ADSC,  it is 
not  the documentation  of counseling  that establishes the ADSC, but 
rather the completion  of  the ADSC-incurring event which  determines 
and  incurs  the  ADSC. 
The  applicable  Air  Force  instruction 
recognizes  that  documentation  is  not  always  accomplished  and  yet 
still directs  the  update  of  the ADSC.  Clearly,  the  intent  of  the 
Air  Force  is  that  officers  make  informed  decisions  regarding  the 
incurring  of  A D S C s   and  the  critical  issue  is  whether  adequate 
information is provided the officer before he or she enters into an 
ADSC-incurring  event, not whether  the officer signed any particular 
document to memorialize that awareness. 

HQ AFPC/DPPRS  points  out  the applicant‘s  extensive experience with 
ADSC-incurring  events  and  the  elaborate  processing  procedures  he 
had  to undergo  in order  to accept  the  flying  training  assignment. 
They note that the applicant does not  state he would  have  declined 
training  had  he  “known”  the  associated  ADSC  was  five-years  vice 
three years.  Therefore,  it  is believed  that  when  he  accepted  his 
assignment  into the  Phoenix Hawk program, he  clearly  indicated  his 
commitment  towards  a  career  through  participation  in  this 
leadership  development  program. 
They  also  note  that  since  that 
training, applicant  has  accepted  and entered  training to become  an 
aircraft  commander  in the KC-10  -  further demonstrating his  intent 
to  remain  in  the  aircraft  system.  In  conclusion,  it  is  believed 
that the awareness of the association of ADSCs with  flying training 
is  so  commonplace  that,  particularly  given  applicant’s previous 

2 

AFBCMR 98-0 1 125 

experience  of  receiving  ADSCs  for  flying  training,  he  volunteered 
for and accepted the training  fully aware that he would  receive an 
ADSC.  The presumption of applicant’s foreknowledge of the ADSC and 
his completion of the training, in their view, constitute his tacit 
acceptance  of  the  ADSC  and  overcome  the  absence  of  formal 
documentation of his acceptance of the ADSC.  Finally, they detect 
no  significant  harm  which  the  applicant  has  experienced  or  will 
experience  as  a  result  of  serving  his  legitimate  commitment. 
Moreover,  given  the  Air  Force’s  critical  need  for  experienced 
pilots,  it  is  of  vital  importance  to  the  Air  Force  mission  to 
retain his services for the full tenure of his ADSC  (Exhibit C with 
Attachments  1 through 8). 

APPLICANT S REVIEW  OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION : 
Applicant  states,  in part,  that  the  facts in  his  case  are  not  in 
dispute.  However,  the  emotionally-charged  arguments  from HQ AFPC 
in  the  Discussion  Section  are  in dispute.  In his  opinion,  it  is 
improper  for  the  Board  to  consider  this  portion  of  the 
recommendation.  This  case  should  limit  itself  to  the  facts,  not 
the  conjecture  of  a  staff  officer  at  HQ  AFPC  who  neglected  to 
verify facts or contact him regarding this application. 

Applicant  goes on to take exception to a number  of assertions made 
by  the advisory writer  and continues to maintain  that he was  told, 
and  was  given  supporting  documentation,  that  his  ADSC  for  KC-10 
training would be  three years.  He concedes, however,  that even  if 
he  had  known  the ADSC  was  five  years,  he  would  not  have  declined 
the training  (Exhibit E). 

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.  In recommending  denial  of  the 
application,  HQ  AFPC/DPPRS  notes,  among  other  things,  that  the 
applicant  asserts  that  the  MPF  at  Travis  AFB  did  not  inform  him 
that  he  would  incur  a  five-year  ADSC  for  the  KC-10  IQT.  Yet  he 
admits he  received written  notification of the ADSC when he  s t a t e s  
he  was  presented  with  a  computer  training  Report  on  Individual 
Person  ( R I P )   which listed the five-year service commitment which he 
would have been required to initial prior  to entering the training. 
It is also noted that shortly after h i s   graduation from the IQT, he 
received  an  ADSC  establishment/change  RIP  dated  January  6,  1997. 
This R I P   clearly states the ADSC he  incurred for KC-10  IQT as  f i v e  

3 

AFBCMR 98-01 125 

. 

years  and  supports  the  fact  that  he  again  received  written 
notification that by  virtue  of his completion of KC-10 IQT,  he had 
in fact incurred  a  five-year  commitment  -  just  as he was  notified 
prior  to the training  on the training allocation notification R I P .  
Lastly,  HQ AFPC/DPPRS  notes  that  the  applicant  does  not  state  he 
would have declined training had he “known” the associated ADSC was 
five years vice three years. 

4.  The  applicant,  on  the  other  hand,  states  that  prior  to  his. 
accepting a  crossflow assignment, he was  informed by  the crossflow 
administrators  at  HQ  AMC/DPOA  and  formal  training  personnel  that 
the ADSC  was  three years.  He  knew of  the  five-year ADSC, but was 
told that the A F I   was to be changed to reflect “air mobility to air 
mobility” and  he would  incur  a  three-year ADSC.  When  he  received 
the  training  allocation  R I P   [reflecting  the  60-month  ADSC],  he 
began  making  telephone  calls  to  determine  if  the  five-year  or 
three-year  commitment would be incurred.  It was at this point, he 
learned  that  the  tables  had  not  been  changed  and  that  this 
crossflow  program  only  incurred  a  three-year  commitment.  On  the 
training  R I P ,   he  made  a  change  from  60 months  to  36  months  and 
wrote  next  to  the  change  “Per  conversatior  with  Capt  “A“/HQ  AMC 
DPOA. ‘‘ 
Later  that  day,  Capt  “A”  faxed  the  AMC  message  DTG 
241630ZNOV95  stating  that  “Officers  incur  a  3-year  active  duty 
service  commitment  per  AFI  36-2017”  (Attachment 5  to  Exhibit  A). 
Fully believing  that his commitment would reflect the 36 months and 
not the 60 months, he returned the signed Ri?  to Scott AFB MPF. 

5.  Having  considered  all  of  the  circumstznces  cf  this  case,  we 
find  the  applicant‘s  assertions  sufficiently  compelling  so  as  to 
conclude  that he was  induced into transitioxing  irso the KC-10 and 
incurring  the  associated  five-year  IQT  ADS: 
undez  the  assumption 
that he would  incur a  three-year ADSC.  S i x e  he  admits, however, 
that  even  if  he  had  known  the  KC-10  IQT  PJSC  was  five  years,  he 
would  not  have  declined  the  training,  an  zrgumer.:  could  be  made 
that the error on the part  of the Air  F o r e  was  wthing more  than 
harmless  error.  And,  as a  consequence, the error  should not  serve 
O n   the  other  hand,  the 
to  invalidate  an  otherwise  valid  ADSC. 
applicant ought to be  able to rely on infor7.ation received  from an 
official  source.  Since the evidence  suggests that he  competed  and 
incurred  the ADSC based  on the assumption that it was  three years, 
equity dictates that he receive nothing more, nothing less. 

THE  BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: 
The pertinent  military  records of  the  Department  of  the Air  Force 
relating  to  APPLICANT,  be  corrected  to  s k ~ w  thaz  he  incurred  a 
three-year Active  Duty Service Commitment  (A3SC) as a result of his 
completion of KC-10 Initial Qualification Trzining  (IQT) . 

4 

AFBCMR 98-01 125 

. 

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

. 

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

Panel Chair 

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

The 

Exhibit A. 
Exhibit B. 
Exhibit C. 
Exhibit D. 
Exhibit E. 

DD Form 149, dated 20 Apr  98, w/atchs. 
Applicant's Microfiche Master Personnel Records. 
Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 11 Jun 98, w/atchs. 
Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 29 Jun 98. 
Letter, Applicant, dated 22 Jul 98, w/atchs. 

'BENEDICT A.  ~ A U S A L  IV 
Panel Chair 

- 

5 

AFBCMR 98-0 1 125 

. 

4 

Office of the Assistant Secretary 

AFBCMR 98-01125 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

WASHINGTON DC 

JAM  0 4 1399 

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: 

Training (IQT). 

of the Department of the Air Force relating to 
e corrected to show that he incurred a three-year Active 
a result of his completion of KC-10 Initial Qualification 

Director 
Air Force Review Boards Agency