ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 97-03735
COUNSEL: JOSEPH W. KASTL
HEARING DESIRED: NO
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) associated with Advanced
Flying Training of 25 April 2000 be deleted from his record.
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was never informed that an additional ADSC would be associated
with this training until months after the training was completed;
that there is no supporting documentation that an ADSC would be
incurred; and that he would not have received the additional
training to which he was assigned had he understood that he would
be incurring either a five-year or three-year adjustment to his
ADSC.
___________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant’s original application was considered and denied in
Executive Session on October 30, 1998, because of insufficient
relevant evidence (See pages 5 and 6 of Exhibit AA).
On February 28, 1999, applicant submitted additional documentation
and requested reconsideration of his application. His statement
and documentary evidence submitted in support of his request for
reconsideration is included as Exhibit BB.
___________________________________________________________________
ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
In an e-mail of May 24, 1999, AFPC/DPPRS states, in part, that
based upon the Secretary of the Air Force’s Rules of Engagement
(ROE), an officer must meet specified criteria to show they
unwillingly incurred an ADSC. In the original case, their case
revolved around the fact that the applicant submitted a letter of
support from a SSgt “M”, an MPF technician, who stated the
applicant was concerned about the length of the ADSC associated
with KC-135 requalification training. The real issue was the time
frame SSgt “M” was referring to when he spoke of the applicant’s
concern for his ADSC. This was unclear in both the application and
SSgt “M’s” letter. They assumed SSgt “M” was referring to the time
frame prior to the applicant’s ADSC associated with KC-135
requalification training and their original advisory was valid.
However, the applicant has provided new evidence to further
substantiate his claim of no prior knowledge of the three-year ADSC
for KC-135 training. A key issue under the ROE is can an applicant
prove he/she was miscounseled through 1) absence of supporting
documentation and 2) through credible statements from wing
leadership. In support of his claim that he was only concerned
about his ADSC after the training was completed and the ADSC
updated is substantiated by a letter from his commander. In this
letter, the commander substantiates a lack of counseling procedure
at the 22d Mission Support Squadron. They believe this letter to
be from a credible source, and thus, this clearly meets the intent
of the ROE. While the applicant provides other letters to support
his claims not to remain on active duty past his UPT commitment,
the key document is provided by his commander. This letter,
coupled with the lack of supporting documentation (i.e., no AF Form
63), warrants a favorable reconsideration by the AFBCMR (Exhibit
CC).
___________________________________________________________________
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. Since his circumstances meet the criteria
of the ROE, equity dictates that the complained of ADSC be deleted
from his records.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that the three-year Active
Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) he incurred as a result of his
completion of KC-135 Requalification Training on 26 April 1997, be
declared void.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered this application in
Executive Session on 27 May 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Benedict A. Kausal, IV, Panel Chair
Mr. Henry Romo, Jr., Member
Mr. Charles E. Bennett, Member
All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The
following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit AA. DD Form 149, dated 13 Nov 98, w/atchs.
Exhibit BB. Letter, Applicant, dated 28 Feb 99, w/atchs.
Exhibit CC. E-Mail, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 24 May 99
BENEDICT A. KAUSAL, IV
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1997-03735
His statement and documentary evidence submitted in support of his request for reconsideration is included as Exhibit BB. However, the applicant has provided new evidence to further substantiate his claim of no prior knowledge of the three-year ADSC for KC-135 training. This letter, coupled with the lack of supporting documentation (i.e., no AF Form 63), warrants a favorable reconsideration by the AFBCMR (Exhibit CC).
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-01920 INDEX NUMBER: 113.04 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) for KC-135 Initial Qualification Training (IQT) of 21 August 2003 be reduced to match his Undergraduate Pilot Training (UPT) ADSC of 25 January 2003. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2000 | BC-1999-01920
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-01920 INDEX NUMBER: 113.04 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) for KC-135 Initial Qualification Training (IQT) of 21 August 2003 be reduced to match his Undergraduate Pilot Training (UPT) ADSC of 25 January 2003. ...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1999-01243
___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Prior to his accepting a crossflow assignment, he was informed by crossflow program administrators at HQ AMC/DPROA and formal training personnel that the ADSC for crossflow from the C-141 to the KC-10 was being changed to three years. Responding to the Air Force’s rationale, the applicant points out that two pilots at his base, one crossflowed before him and one after him, each requested a change to...
___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Prior to his accepting a crossflow assignment, he was informed by crossflow program administrators at HQ AMC/DPROA and formal training personnel that the ADSC for crossflow from the C-141 to the KC-10 was being changed to three years. Responding to the Air Force’s rationale, the applicant points out that two pilots at his base, one crossflowed before him and one after him, each requested a change to...
HQ AFPC/DPAOM agrees the applicant may have missed the OSA assignment boards in his transitions between Norton, March, and Randolph; however, those boards were discontinued while the applicant was at Randolph. Based upon that fact, HQ AFPC/DPAOM believes the applicant could have applied for his MWS at any time prior to or during his tour at Randolph. Applicant contends that due to several base closures, he got lost in the transition from OSA to MWS and spent too much time in OSA is duly noted.
APPLICANT S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION : Applicant states, in part, that the facts in his case are not in dispute. 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. This R I P clearly states the ADSC he incurred for KC-10 IQT as f i v e 3 AFBCMR 98-01 125 .
Furthermore, he had to wait five months beyond his Date Expected Return from Overseas (DEROS) for an MWS training date involuntarily. Applicant further states that the time for training and waiting for training dates equates to 11 months of commitment beyond his pilot training ADSC. He also requests relief from the remaining 195 days of training time that he incurred outside of his initial eight-year UPT commitment.
He incurred a two-year ADSC which expires on 23 January 1999. Another source available to applicant at the time was the HQ AFPC/DPPAW message, dated 25 January 1996, titled, “Voluntary Extended Active Duty (EAD)/Recall for Navigators and Electronic Warfare Officers (Atch 7). In that information sheet, it also clearly stated in paragraph 1.e., “Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC): Each officer accepting EAD will receive an initial ADSC of two years.
However, although documentation of that counseling does not exist, applicant denies that it occurred, and a copy of the PCS notification RIP is no longer available to permit verification of applicant's signature accepting the assignment, they believe it's a reasonable presumption that competent counseling was provided and that applicant was in fact aware of the ADSC which would be incurred for training (Exhibit C with Attachments 1 through 6). The Air not exist, applicant denies that it...