AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RE 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  98-02658 

COUNSEL : 
HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT: 

The  Active  Duty  Service  Commitment  (ADSC)  for  E-4B  training 
retroactive added to his personnel records on 17 September 1998, 
be deleted. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THA T: 
He was never briefed of an ADSC for E-4B training, but, in fact, 
was told by several personnel officials and his chain of command 
that there was no ADSC for the E-4B training. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

Applicant completed E-4B Initial Qualification Training  (IQT) on 
16  February 1997.  As a result, he incurred a five-year ADSC of 
15  February 2002.  However, it  appears that  the ADSC  was  not 
updated in his records until he requested an ADSC verification in 
August 1998. 

IR FORCE EVAJUATION: 

HQ  AFPC/DPPRR  recommends that  the  application  be  denied.  It 
indicates, in part, that applicant has gone to great lengths to 
find personnel who will corroborate his statements of not being 
briefed  on  the  five-year ADSC.  However,  chances are  none  of 
these  individuals  were  present  at  the  time  he  received  his 
initial relocation briefing  from the  relocation element  of  the 
Military Personnel Flight  (MPF).  At  the time of his  selection 
for  crossflow  into  the  E-4B  training  and  subsequent  PCS  to 
Of futt ,  his assignment action officer, Major  "C" ,  noted  in the 
assignment worksheet  trailer remarks section, 'Compute  ADSC  IAW 
AFI  36-2107, T1.9, R1  for PCS and  T1.5, R1  for training.  You 
will incur the following ADSC IAW AFI 36-2107, for this training: 
5-years."  (Atch 2)  Additionally, Major  "C" placed  these  same 
statements on the Assignment Load Data worksheet  (Atch 3 ) ;   used 
as the sole source document to load the assignment data into the 

personnel  data  system  and  which  subsequently  generates  the 
assignment notification Report on Individual Person (RIP). 
Applicant states that the \\personnel agency selecting someone for 
an ADSC incurring event is required to cite the MPF the specific 
table and rule that apply and ensure that person goes to the MPF 
for counseling.. .  This was not accomplished."  However, this was 
accomplished.  Because the assignment was a short notice action, 
the assignment officer was required to send an electronic message 
to notify applicant of the assignment.  He placed the exact same 
comment  from  the assignment worksheet  on the actual assignment 
notification message  (Atch 4).  This message would have been the 
instrument  used  by  the  personnel  clerk  in  lieu  of  a  system 
generated assignment notification RIP, to brief applicant on the 
particulars  of  his  assignment,  per  the  assignment  officer's 
instructions on that message.  This information would also have 
been  printed  in  the  remarks  section  of  the  assignment 
notification RIP  which  applicant  would  have  eventually  signed, 
acknowledging  acceptance  of  the  assignment. 
Counseling  is 
normally accomplished during PCS relocation counseling necessary 
to prepare members'  orders and to resolve any issues related to 
the upcoming  PCS.  However, relocation folders are destroyed a 
few months after the member's  departure so are unavailable for 
them to review to determine exactly what information was provided 
to applicant. 
By no means are they asserting that applicant is being dishonest. 
They are confident that given applicant's sterling record, he has 
served  the  Air  Force  honorably  for  over  13  years.  Applicant 
assures  them  he  never  signed  an AF  Form  63  acknowledging the 
five-year ADSC.  Although MPFs are supposed to forward copies of 
AF Forms 63 to the officer's permanent files  (at unit  level and 
at  AFPC),  they  sometimes neglect  to  do  so; sometimes -  as  is 
alleged in this case -  they fail to even accomplish an AF  Form 
63.  (They suggest that could be due to the MPF clerk's confusion 
regarding  PCS ADSC  counseling, which  requires no  documentation 
(Atch  5),  and  the  training  ADSC  counseling,  which  occurred 
simultaneously.  Although the latter should have been documented, 
it is possible the clerk mistakenly assumed otherwise).  However, 
one cannot ignore the fact that the ADSC was clearly noted on the 
assignment notification message and, in the absence of an AF Form 
63, that message served as the source document for the officer's 
acknowledgment  of  the  training  and  acceptance  of  the  ADSC 
associated with it  (Exhibit C with Attachments 1 through 5) . 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
Counsel states, in part, that the advisory opinion in this case 
is a desperately circuitous and  totally  ineffective, effort  to 
maintain the status quo when the facts show that the status quo 
The  five-year  ADSC  that  has  been  unilaterally, 
is  wrong. 

2 

unknowingly and involuntarily imposed by AFPC should be deleted 
from applicant's  record. 

The  circuitry of  the  opinion takes a number of  forms.  First, 
DPPRR does not  "assert that  applicant is being  dishonest,''  but 
then essentially accuses him of lying about having been counseled 
Second ,  DPPRR 
on  a  two-year  (rather than  five-year)  ADSC. 
impugns applicant's  corroborating witnesses for not  having been 
present  at  his  counseling  sessions, but  then  relies  on  the 
actions  of  an  AFPC  officer  (Major "Ct/) who  was  not  present 
either.  Third, DPPRR assumes that MPF personnel followed their 
instructions when counseling applicant, but then offers a variety 
of speculative "justifications" for why those same MPF personnel 
failed to  follow their instructions to have  applicant sign the 
all-important AF  Form  6 3   to document that  counseling.  DPPRR's 
arguments are circuitous because reality, propriety  and justice 
will not support the involuntary imposition of a five-year ADSC 
in this case. 

1.  DPPRR's advisory opinion presumes that a five-year ADSC 
was,  in  fact, associated  with  applicant's  E-4B  training.  The 
evidence in this case, however, shows that everyone  in the Air 
was  of  the 
Force, with  the  apparent  exception  of  Major  T I ' ,  
opinion t hat no ADSC was involved.  AFPC/DPPRD confirmed this to 
Lieutenant Colonel Martin P. "D", the 1 ACCS Operations Officer, 
who felt that the lack of an ADSC threatened the stability of the 
E-4B  program.  See DD 1 4 9 ,   Attachment 13.  To  fill that void, Lt 
Col  'D"  took actions t hat  led to the release of  Interim Change 
(IC) 9 7 - 1   to AFI 356- 2107. 
IC 9 7 - 1   added the E-4B  to Table 1 - 5  
for the  first  time  and provided  for a three-year  (rather than 
f ive-year)  ADSC . 
Until  then,  no  provision  in  AFI  365- 2107 
applied to the different training that applicant and other E-4B 
pilots received.  Thus, the five-year ADSC now being  imposed by 
AFPC  should  be  deleted  from  applicants  record  because  it  was 
unauthorized  by  the  AFI  36- 2107  in  effect  at  the  time  of 
applicant's  training and is two years longer than the ADSC that 
was  ultimately  authorized  by  IC  9 7 - 1 .  
In  the  event  of  an 
authoritative determination that AFI  36- 2107  ( 1 9 9 4 )   did provide 
for  a  five-year ADSC  for  E-4B  training,  the  balance  of  this 
memorandum  will  address the  substance  of  the  DPPRR  claim  that 
applicant incurred such an ADSC. 

2.  DPPRR's position rests largely on the faulty hypothesis 
that  applicant  was  counseled  because  he  should  have  been 
counseled. 
This  position,  commonly  referred  to  as  the 
"presumption of administrative regularity," was addressed by the 
Court of Appeals in Kelly v. United States, 826  F.2d 1 0 4 9   (Fed. 
Cir. 1 9 8 7 ) .   In that case, the Air Force argued that the widow of 
a retired  officer had  been  notified  of  her  husband's  Survivor 
Benefit  Plan  (SPB) election because  regulations required  t  hat 
she be notified.  The Court disagreed because the "presumption of 
administrative regularity" disappears in the fact of evidence to 
the  contrary.  It  held  that  the  widow's  denial  of  notice was 
sufficient to rebut the  "presumption" and require the Air Force 

3 

to prove that notice was in fact given See Dean v. United States, 
10 C1. Ct. 563, 371  (1986).  Counsel's  complete brief is included 
as Exhibit E. 

THE BOAR D CONCL UDES THAT: 

The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 

1. 
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.  Counsel 
contends the was never briefed of an ADSC for E-4B training, but, 
in fact, was told by several personnel officials and his chain of 
command that  there was no ADSC  for the E-4B training. Although 
the Air Force initially recommended denial of the application, we 
have now been advised via e-mail that his case meets the criteria 
for  administrative  relief  under  the  recently  approved  Rule  of 
Engagement  (ROE) relating to resolving ADSC disputes.  In view of 
the foregoing, equity dictates that the relief sought be granted. 

THE BOARD RECOWNDS 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 E-4B Initial Qualification Training on 16 February 
1997, be declared void and removed from his records. 

The following members of the Board considered this application in 
Executive Session on 19  February  1999,  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 recommended.  The 
following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 21 Sep 98, w/atchs. 
Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRR, dated 3 Dec 98, w/atchs. 

4 

Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 21 Dec 98. 
Exhibit E.  Letter, Counsel, dated 15 Jan 99, w/atchs. 
Exhibit F.  E-Mail, AFPC/DPPRS,  dated 10 Feb 99. 

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

5 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

WASHINGTON, D. C. 

FEB 2 5 1999 

Office of the Assistant Secretary 

AFBCMR 98-02658 

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: 

16 February 1997, be, and hereby is, declared void and removed from his records. 

ords of the Department of the Air Force r 
ed to show that his five-year Active Duty 
s completion of E-4B Initial Qualification 

v Director 

Air Force Review Boards Agency 

U