RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-02820
INDEX CODE: 113.04
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His original signed Weapons School commitment of two years stand as
is.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was not counseled properly nor did he sign any commitment in
accordance with AFI 36-2107 prior to his attending the Weapons School;
and that on 26 December 1996, he signed a commitment for two years
based on Table 1.14, Rule 2 (See Applicant’s Attachment 3).
Applicant’s complete statement and documentary evidence submitted in
support of his application are included as Exhibit A with Attachments
1 through 5.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant graduated from Fighter Weapons Instructor Course (FWIC) on
15 June 1996. As a result, he incurred a five-year Active Duty
Service Commitment (ADSC) of 14 June 2001.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPPRR recommends that the application be denied. It
indicates, in part, that the AF Form 63 applicant signed was erroneous
– even the applicant himself admits that. The Military Personnel
Flight (MPF) technician cited the wrong table and rule from AFI 36-
2107; Table 1.14, Rule 2. As the title clearly states, Airman ADSCs
for Training or Education, this table does
not even apply to officers (Atch 2). The correct table and rule which
applies to the Fighter Weapons School (FWS) is Table 1.5, Rule 4 (Atch
3).
Applicant was scheduled to attend the FWIC via the Air Force Training
Management System (AFTMS). This generated a training allocation
notification Report on Individual Person (RIP) (sample at Atch 4). In
its interaction with the Personnel Data System (PDS), Air Force
Training Management System (AFTMS) relies on a table of ADSCs for
given courses; in the generation of a training allocation RIP, AFTMS
refers to this table to automatically retrieve the proper ADSC for the
specific course being allocated. They have confirmed the table
contained an incorrect ADSC (two years) for Fighter Weapons Instructor
Course (FWIC) at the time of the applicant’s selection. However, both
AFPC functional managers for the F-15 specifically recall
conversations with numerous F-15 crew members, which at some time
would have included the applicant, in regards to this AFTMS error and
further discussions confirming the correct ADSC for FWIC as five years
(e-mail, Atch 5).
Cleverly, nowhere in his application does applicant either
categorically deny any knowledge of a five-year ADSC nor does he state
he would not have accepted the training had he known of the five-year
ADSC. They believe the applicant, like many other new weapons system
officers, was aware the two-year ADSC in AFTMS was incorrect but was
prepared to take advantage of this administrative error until the Air
Force “fixed the loophole.” (Exhibit C with Attachments 1 through 5)
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Counsel states, in part, that applicant’s October 12, 1996, RIP shows
that he was ultimately counseled expressly because his ADSC for FWIC
was “not properly documented.” Applicant reported for counseling and
signed the AF Form 63 that was dutifully presented to him by the
personnel professionals. That form reflected a two-year ADSC. By
signing that form, applicant acknowledged and agreed to the two-year
ADSC reflected thereon. The existence of this form should be the end
of the story. It is not because DPPRR goes to drastic lengths to show
why applicant should have a five-year commitment. As the following
will show, none of the reasons cited by DPPRR will justify the
imposition of a five-year ADSC that conflicts with the two-year AF
Form 63 in applicant’s records and that he was unaware of until long
after the fact.
Applicant’s complete statement and additional evidence submitted in
support of the case are included as 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 a probable error or an injustice warranting favorable
action on his request. In this respect, we note that the applicant
contends that he was not counseled properly nor did he sign any
commitment in accordance with AFI 36-2107 prior to his attending the
Weapons School; and that on 26 December 1996, he signed a commitment
for two years based on Table 1.14, Rule 2. In support of his
contention, the applicant submits a copy of an AF Form 63, Officer
Airman Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) Counseling Statement,
purported counter signed by a Military Personnel Flight official on 16
December 1996 indicating that he incurred an ADSC of 14 June 1998 as a
result of Advanced Flying Training. In view of this, and in the
absence of a basis to question the authenticity of the AF Form 63,
equity dictates that his request be approved.
_________________________________________________________________
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 (ADSC) he incurred as a result of his
completion of Fighter Weapons Instructor Course (FWIC) on 15 June
1996, be declared void.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered this application in
Executive Session on 13 April 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 1 Oct 98, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRR, dated 14 Dec 98 w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 18 Jan 99.
Exhibit E. Applicant’s Letter, dated 20 Jan 99.
Exhibit F. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 1 Feb 99.
Exhibit G. Counsel’s Response, dated 24 Mar 99, w/atchs.
HENRY ROMO, JR.
Acting Panel Chair
AFBCMR 98-02820
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:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air
Force relating to [APPLICANT], be corrected to show that that the five-
year Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) he incurred as a result of
his completion of Fighter Weapons Instructor Course (FWIC) on 15 June
1996, be declared void.
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC) added a training commitment that he was not counseled about and did not agree to; that it is unfair for this commitment to be added almost one year after the training was completed; that he was counseled that the commitment would only be two years since he was a prior T-38 instructor pilot (IP); and that he was not asked to sign for a three-year commitment on an...
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was not made aware of nor did he acknowledge acceptance of the three-year ADSC for completion of Initial Qualification Training (IQT) in the C-9. 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 (in this case,...
In addition, the Air Force Training Management System (AFTMS) assigned an erroneous 24-months ADSC for the training. Finally, upon completing the training he was presented a signed AF Form 63 advising him that his USAFWS ADSC was 13 June 1999 (approximately two years from completion of the training). Notwithstanding this documentation, the authenticity of which is not questioned, the advisory writer claims that applicant incurred a five-year ADSC: (1) because “we believe he was fully aware...
_________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Upon being asked to comment on applicant’s request that his ACP agreement be effective as of November 1997, HQ AFPC/DPAR states, in part, that current Air Force policy does not allow pilots to get ADSC “credit” for variable length ACP agreements. He has applied Air Force policy guidance consistently to all pilots with incorrect UPT ADSCs who have requested to be eligible for ACP based on the...
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. 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...
HQ AFPC/DPPRS further states that although documentation of the C-141 counseling does not exist and applicant indicates he was never informed about the five-year ADSC, they believe it is a reasonable presumption that he was in fact aware of the ADSC which would be incurred. Applicant contends that he was verbally counseled that no ADSC would be incurred beyond 31 March 2000 for training in the C- 141; that no Air Force Form 63 or counseling to the contrary occurred; and that, after the...
HQ AFPC/DPPRS further states that although documentation of the C-141 counseling does not exist and applicant indicates he was never informed about the five-year ADSC, they believe it is a reasonable presumption that he was in fact aware of the ADSC which would be incurred. Applicant contends that he was verbally counseled that no ADSC would be incurred beyond 31 March 2000 for training in the C- 141; that no Air Force Form 63 or counseling to the contrary occurred; and that, after the...
___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant states, in part, that first, we can look at the events that occurred at Vance AFB, OK. HQ AFPC has stated that he must have signed a training RIP and possible a Form 63 in order to have received his assignment to Luke AFB. This was the first time he was given a Form 63 to sign and informed that he was receiving a five- year ADSC for previous training he had accomplished....
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-05084
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-05084 COUNSEL: HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His active duty service commitment (ADSC) incurred for participation in the Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Beta Test Program (UBTP) be changed from six years to three years. In support of his appeal, the applicant submits a 66-paragragh personal...
This generated a training allocation notification R I T , which clearly indicated a three-year RDSC would be incurred, and applicant was required to initial the following statements on the RIP, I I I accept training and will obtain the required retainability" and ''1 understand upon completion of this training I will incur the following active duty service commitments (ADSC) ' I . Although documentation of counseling does not exist and applicant denies that it occurred, they believe it's a...