AIR FORCE BOARD FOR  CORRECTION OF’ MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  98-01259 
COUNSEL:  NONE 

HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

His  11  December  1999  Active  Duty  Service  Commitment  (ADSC) be 
declared void; that his 7 November 1999 ADSC be declared void; and, 
that his date of separation be established as 4 April  1999. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

He  was  not  informed  of  the  ADSC  prior  to  entering  training;  that 
the ADSCs were not briefed to him at any time during the assignment 
process;  and,  that  it  was  not  until  well  after  his  completion  of 
training  when  his  unit  commander pursued  enforcement  of  ADSCs  for 
all personnel  attending  training  that he  learned  of the three-year 
Initial Qualification Training  ( I Q T )   ADSC. 
Applicant’s  complete  statement  and  documentary  evidence  submitted 
in  support  of  his  application  are  included  as  Exhibit  A  with 
Attachments  1 through 23. 

Applicant’s  commander,  Colonel 
states,  in  part,  that  during 
applicant’s  application  process  for  this  assignment,  he  was 
informed  by  the  unit‘s  operations  officer  that  there  was  no ADSC. 
He was  also not  counseled by  either  his  losing or gaining military 
personnel  flight  (MPF) regarding an ADSC.  During his  in-briefing, 
as  his  new  commander,  he  briefed  the  applicant  that  there  was  no 
ADSC in force at that time. 
During the time applicant was being assigned to -, 
the unit was 
in  the  process  of  determining  if  an  ADSC  was  authorized  and  in 
effect.  AFI  36-2107,  Table  1.5, Rule  8,  identifies  the  C-29  as 
having  a  three-year  commitment  for initial weapon  system training. 
The  organization’s  previous  commander  did  not  enforce  this  ADSC, 
reasoning  that  because  the  Air  Force  transferred  the  C-29s  to  the 
FAA  in  1991  and  training  was  paid  for  by  the  FAA,  there  was  no 
rce  assigned  11  pilots  and  6 
ADSC.  In  that  transfer,  th 
enlisted  crew  members  to 
whose  mission  is  to  fly 
combat/contingency  flight  inspection missions  using  the  C-29.  The 
Air  Force  pays  for  training  and  testing  for  an  Airline  Transport 
Pilot  (ATP) certificate for pilots to meet the FAA requirements for 
their  aircraft, and  the Air  Force does  not  have  productive  use  of 
those pilots  while  they  are  in  training.  Because  of  t h a e  facts, 

n

z

he  questioned  the  previous  commander's  interpretation  and  began 
action  to  c 
aircraft.  T 

he  ADSC  status  for  training  in  the 
oordination  with  AFPC/DPMRIP,  legal,  an 
, he determined that a requirement  for an 

t

e
 this aircraft did exist and that the procedures  in 
AFI  36-2107, Para  1.9.5,  regarding  counseling  after  completing  an 
ADSC-incurring  event should be  followed.  Because applicant was not 
counseled  prior  to  the ADSC  event  and  was  previously  briefed  that 
an  ADSC  did  not  exist,  he  does  have  some  justification  for  his 
waiver request  (See Attachment  6). 

i

n

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

and  was  selected  for  reassignment  to 
in  June  1996  with  a  reporting  dat 

was  later  changed  to  31  October  1996.  He 
completed  his  Flight  Inspection  Training  which  equates  to  Initial 
Qualification  Training  (IQT)  in  the  C-29  owned  by  the  Federal 
His  completion  of  I Q T   resulted  in  a 
Aviation  Administration. 
three-year ADSC of  11 December 1999. 

Applicant  was  subsequently  ordered  to  attend  aircraft  commander 
upgrade training which resulted in his receiving a two-year ADSC of 
7 November 1999. 

A I R   FORCE EVALUATION: 
HQ AFPC/DPPRS  sets forth the reason  for the establishment of ADSCs 
and  advises  that  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  t h e  
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  y e t  
still directs  the  update  of  the ADSC.  Clearly,  the  intent  of  the 
Air  Force  is  that  officers  make  informed  decisions  regarding  the 
incurring  of  ADSCs  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  further  states,  in  part,  that  while  applicant  was 
briefed  during  training  of  the  ADSC  he  was  going  to  incur  upon 
completion  of  the  training,  it  appears  that he  was  not  briefed  of 
his options regarding the A D S C .  
Moreover, had applicant been aware 
of  the  ADSC,  he  would  not  have  accepted  the  assignme-  nor  tne 

2 

AFBCMR  98-01259 

training.  Nonetheless,  AFPC/DPPRS  recommends  denial  because  they 
do  not  perceive  that  he  has  suffered  any  injustice  or  harm  as  a 
result  of  incurring  the  ADSC. 
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). 

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR  FORCE EVALUATION: 

In reference  to the Air  Force’s policy  that officers receive ADSCs 
voluntarily or elect separation, applicant asks why wasn‘t he given 
the  same  options?  His  commander  told  him  he  had  five minutes  to 
sign  and  accept  the ADSC  or  to  decline  the ADSC  and  be  grounded. 
He  does  not  think  that  is  the  current Air  Force  philosophy.  The 
onus 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 is on the Air  Force not him.  Concerning  the 
advisory  statement  that  the  vast  majority  (ADSCs)  have  been 
incurred  with  the  officers  full  understanding  and  willing 
acceptance,  he  asks  does  that  make  him  the  minority  culpable  for 
not being briefed much less accepting an unknown entity? 

In response to the advisory statement that the Air  Force has had  a 
long-standing  ADSC  for  C-29  IQT,  applicant  asks  that  if  this  is 
true and  the ADSC  has  been  in place  so long, how  come no one  knew 
about  it?  If  the ADSC  has  been  in place  so  long,  what  authority 
does  the  commander  have  in  arbitrarily  deciding  the  start  date  of 
the ADSCs?  If the ADSC  has  been  in place  so long, what  criteria 
did  they use?  If the ADSC  for C-29 IQT has had  a “long-standing,” 
why  was  he  tasked  to  research  and  develop  the  formal  process  of 
establishing  the  start  dates  for  ADSC  training? 
It  is  his 
understanding that no pilot has ever received an ADSC for the C-29. 

Concerning  the  statement  that  he  was  in  training  when  enforcement 
of the ADSC began, but did not choose to eliminate from training at 
that  time,  and  that  his  continuation  of  training  after  becoming 
aware  of  the  ADSC  constitutes  his  tacit  acceptance  of  that 
commitment,  applicant  states  that  these  statements  are  false  and 
libelous.  Looking  at  the  time  line he  provided  with  this  letter, 
it  is  apparent  that  he  received  his  ADSC  briefing  for  IQT  on 
27 July  1997,  eight  months  after  the  alleged  “IQT  training  was 
he  was  not  in  “IQT”  when  his  ADSC  was 
completed.” 
briefed  nor  could one infer that he  was  tacitly complacent.  After 
the  27  July  1997 ADSC  briefing,  Colonel  “A“  specifically  briefed 
the entire unit that the only ADSC imposed would be  for the initial 
qualification.  On  7 November  1997, he  completed  an  FAA check ride 
for  Airspace  System  Inspection  Pilot  which  has  no  Air  Force 
Perhaps  the  best  term  to  describe  the  check  is 
equivalency. 
mission  qualification. 
The  Air  Force  does  not  give  ADSCs  for 
all USAF and  FAA 
mission  qualification. 
pilots  are  considered  fully  qualified  pilots  in  command. 
Therefore, he should not have been asked to sign an additional  Forrr. 

After  simulator  training, 

Therefore, 

3 

AFBCMR  98-01259 

rade in aircraft.“  On  6 March  1998, he was  ordered by 
to go  to 
to  receive  another ADSC  briefing. 
The  date  of  the  briefing  was  five  months  after  the  alleged 
“upgrade.”  At  no  time  was  he  ever  given  the  opportunity  to quit 
training  or  to voluntarily  separate.  The synopsis is, he received 
the first “ADSC briefing” eight months after “initial q u a l ”   and the 
second  “ADSC  briefing”  five  months  after  the  Airspace  System 
Inspection  Pilot  checkride. 
Applicant‘s  complete  statement  is 
included as Exhibit E with Attachment  1. 

ADDITIONAL AIR  FORCE EVALUATION: 

In  response  to  a  verbal  request  from  the  staff  for  further 
clarification  of  the  applicant’s  upgrade ADSC  of  7 November  1999, 
HQ  AFPC/DPPRR  states,  in  part,  that  the  applicant  submitted  a 
letter from his commander directing him to report to the MPF office 
to  complete  an  AF  Form  63  acknowledging  the  ADSC  f o r   aircraft 
commander  upgrade  training.  He  signed  an  AF  Form  63  on  6 March 
1998, acknowledging after the fact the two-year  commitment.  On the 
AF  Form  63,  applicant  stated  his  intent  to  decline  the  ADSC 
associated  with  the  upgrade  training. 
Further,  the  applicant’s 
commander  himself  confirmed  that  the  member  was  not  afforded  the 
opportunity  to  state  his  intent  prior  to  training.  If  the  Board 
rules  in  the  member’s  favor  for  the  I Q T ,   then  the  same  rationale 
should apply for the upgrade ADSC  (Exhibit F). 

4 

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS FROM APPLICANT: 

Applicant  states  that  in  order  to  separate  from  the  Air  Force,  a 
member  is  required  to  give  180  days  notice. 
If  his  case  is 
granted,  he  would  not  be  able  to  separate  on  the  date  desired 
because  of  this  requirement.  Therefore,  he  asks  that  his  4  April 
1999 ADSC  be established as his separation date  (Exhibit G). 

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.  HQ AFPC/DPPRR  admits 
that,  while  applicant  was  briefed  during  training  of  the  ADSC  he 
was going to incur upon completion of the training, it appears that 
he  was  not  briefed  of  his  options  regarding  the  ADSC. 
Moreover, 
had  he  been  aware  of  the  ADSC,  he  would  not  have  accepted  the 
assignment  nor  the  training.  Having  said that, HQ AFPC/DPPRS  goes 

4 

AFBCMR  98-01259 

--. 

on to recommend denial because  they do not perceive  that applicant 
has  suffered  any  injustice  or  harm  as  a  result  of  incurring  the 
ADSC.  They do not consider a deferred opportunity to seek post-Air 
Force  employment  as  significant  harm  or  hardship  as  the  applicant 
may  claim. 
Moreover,  given  the  Air  Force’s  critical  need  for 
experienced  pilots,  it  is believed  that  it  is  of vital  importance 
to the Air Force mission  to retain his services for the full tenure 
of his ADSC. 
4.  We  understand  the  Air  Force’s  critical  need  for  experienced 
pilots.  However,  in  the  absence  of  a  National  emergency,  we  are 
not  convinced  that  the  needs  of  the  service  should  serve  to 
override the applicant’s right to be fairly treated.  HQ AFPC/DPPRR 
has  consistently  maintained  that  the  onus  is  on  the  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.  Once the applicant meets  this burden,  HQ AFPC/DPPRR 
argues that he should now establish that he will suffer significant 
hardship  or  harm  in  order  to  obtain  relief  from  an ADSC  that  was 
inappropriately  applied. 
Since  the  Air  Force’s 
failure  to adhere  to  its own policy  caused  the  applicant  to incur 
the  three-year  C-29  IQT  ADSC,  equity  demands  that  this  ADSC  be 
voided.  Moreover,  since he  was  not  counseled  prior  to entry  into 
the  aircraft  commander  upgrade  training  and  given  the  opportunity 
to  voluntarily  incur  the  two-year  ADSC,  this  ADSC  should  also be 
voided.  Lastly,  since the unjust ADSCs  rendered him  ineligible to 
apply  for  separation  from  the  service  at  the  expiration  of  his 
legitimate service commitment, equity also demands that his request 
for establishment of a separation date be approved. 

We  disagree. 

---- 

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: 

The pertinent  military  records  of  the  Department  of  the Air  Force 
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that: 

a.  His  three-year  Active  Duty  Service  Commitment  (ADSC) 
incurred  as  a  result  of  his  completion  of  C-29  Initial 
Qualification  Training  (IQT) and  the  two-year  ADSC  incurred  as  a 
result  of his  completion  of aircraft  commander  upgrade  training be 
declared void. 

b.  He  applied  for separation  to become  effective  4  April  1999 

and his request was approved by competent authoritv. -’ 

---- 

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 

5 

AFBCMR  98-01259 

. .  

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. 

Exhibit F. 
Exhibit G. 

DD Form 149, dated 30 April 1998, with 
Attachments. 
Microfiche Copy of Applicant's Master Personnel 
Records. 
Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS,  dated 25 June 1998. 
Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 13 July 1998 
Letter from Applicant, dated 4 August  1998, with 
Attachment. 
Letter from HQ AFPC/DPPRR, dated 5 November 1998. 
Letter from Applicant, dated 6 November 1998. 

- 

D&-~b[L 

BENEDICT A KA SAL IV 
Panel Chair 

6 

AFBCMR  98-01259 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

WASHINGTON DC 

-. . 
-. 

L._ 
L. 

Office of the Assistant Secretary 

AFBCMR 98-01259 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF 
MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF 

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

partment of the Air Force relating to 
partment of the Air Force relating to 
corrected to show that: 
corrected to show that: 

a.  His three-year Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) incurred as a result of 
a.  His three-year Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) incurred as a result of 

his completion of C-29 Initial Qualification Training (IQT) and the two-year ADSC incurred 
his completion of C-29 Initial Qualification Training (IQT) and the two-year ADSC incurred 
as a result of his completion of aircraft commander upgrade training be, and hereby are, 
as a result of his completion of aircraft commander upgrade training be, and hereby are, 
declared void. 
declared void. 

b.  He applied for separation to become effective 4 April 1999 and his request was 
b.  He applied for separation to become effective 4 April 1999 and his request was 

approved by competent authority. 
approved by competent authority. 

v  Air Force Review Boards Agency 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

HEADQUARTERS AIR FORCE PERSONNEL CENTER 

RANDOLPH AIR FORCE BASE TEXAS 

MEMORANDUM FOR  AFBCMR 

FROM:  HQ AFPCDPPRS 

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

SUBJECT: 

for Correction of Military Records 

' 

REQUESTED ACTION: 

request his active duty service commitment 

(ADSC) for Initial Qualification Training (IQT) be deleted from his records. 

BASIS FOR REQUEST: 

is making this request because he was not 
informed of the ADSC prior to entering training.  The ADSCs were not briefed to him at any 
time during the assignment process.  It was not until well after his completion of training when 
his unit commander pursued enforcement of ADSCs for all personnel attending training. 

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 Jul94  para 1.1 
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 
ADSC for training he would not have accepted had he been aware of the ADSC prior to entering 
the training.  AFI 36-2107 clearly delineates the ADSC to be incurred for each type of event.  If 
any Air Force member was unsure of the ADSC he or she will incur, the AFI provides a ready 
resource of clear, unambiguous, and authoritative information. 

- 

I 

2 

c.  While documentation of the officer’s awareness of the ADSC provides 

ironclad 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. 
Indeed, the 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 ADSCs 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. 

C. 
irport in 

lunteered and was selected for reassignment to 
ng date of 31 Aug 96 which was later changed 

96.  He completed the his Flight Inspection Training which equates to Initial Qualification 
Training in the C-29 owned by the Federal Aviation Administration.  His completing of IQT 
resulted in a three year ADSC of 11 Dec 99. 

DISCUSSION: 

a.  The Air Force has had a long standing ADSC for C-29 IQT.  However, at the 

was selected for his assignment, officers assigned to Will Rogers World 

ti 
Airport were erroneously not awarded an ADSC for completing the C-29 IQT through the FAA, 
and were under the misconception that an ADSC was not applicable to the training.  A new 
commander realized the situation a 
were given the appropriate ADSC. 
According to the statement of the c 
briefed about the ADSC on 29 Jul97. 
that time.  His continuation of trai 
acceptance of that commitment. 

ensure all officers completing C-29 training 

id not chose to eliminate from training at 

b.  According to the commander’s investigation, he determined that while the 

ADSC had not been briefed or updated, the training did occur and there for the ADSC was 
incurred.  We concur with the commander.  We also note that proper advisory and documentation 
procedures were not accomplished resulting in the member’s unwitting and unwilling incurrence 
of the ADSC. 

RECOMMENDATION: 

a.  M i l  

was briefed during training of the ADSC he was going to 
incur upon completion of the training, it appears that he was not briefed of his options regarding 
the ADSC. 

b.  Had 

the assignment nor the training. 

been aware of the ADSC, he would not have accepted 

c.  We do not perceive th 

has suffered any injustice or harm as 

a result of incurring the ADSC.  We do not consider a deferred opportunity to seek post-Air 
Force employment as significant harm or hardship as the member may claim.  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. 

estions concerning the ADSC, m y  POC is 

3 

f Y  F. SCH gpkw&y 

ARTZ, Capt  USAF 

KAREN 

Assistant Chief, Separations Brhch 
Directorate, Personnel Programs Management 

I

.

 

M 002 

- .. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

HEADQUARTERS AIR FORCE PERSONNEL CENTER 

RANDOLPH AIR FORCE BASE TEXAS 

MEMORANDUM FOR  AFBCMR 
FROM:  AFPC/DPPRR 

request to remove his “pending 7 Nov 99 ADSC” for 

e training-we  feel the ADSC is valid.  Member attended 

incurs the associated ADSC. However 
which must be taken into consideration: 

(1)  The member was not counseled prior to e n w  into the upgrade program and therefore 

was not given the opportunity to state his intent prior to entering the training program.  ~f 
member had been afforded the opportunity to decline the ADSC prior to training and stated his 
intent at that time-his  DOS under the 7-day opt policy would have been established as the Dee 
99 IQT commitment-the  longest ADSC on file. 

(2) Member submitted a letter fiom his commander directing him to report to the Military 
Personnel Flight training office to complete an AF Form 63 acknowledging the ADSC.  Note this 
letter postdates the member’s training completion date. 

, acknowledging after the fact, the two 
stated his intent to decline the ADSC 

(3) Member signed an AF Fo 

year commitment.  On the AF Form 63 
associated with the upgrade training. 

known of the ADSC. 

(4) Member states in his application that he would not have attended training, had he 

initial qualification training, then the same rationale should apply  or the upgrade ADSC. w- 

RECOMMENDATION 
The member’s commander himself confirmed that the member was not afforded the 

opportunity to state his intent prior to training.  If the board d e s  in the member’s favor for the 

PAULA A. GOODE,  aj, USAF 
Chief, Officer and Enllsted Retirements Section 
Directorate of Personnel Program Mangement