RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-03214
INDEX NUMBER: 113.04
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED:
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) be changed from 10 May
2001 back to 17 May 1999.
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The ADSC was changed to 10 May 2001 on 3 November 1998 without
notifying him prior to the change; that his ADSC was established as
17 May 1999; that he based his retirement on this date (1 June
1999); and that HQ AFPC has not furnished paperwork showing he was
committed to the date (10 May 2001) (e.g., AF Form 63).
Applicant’s complete statement and documentary evidence submitted
in support of his application are included as Exhibit A with
Attachments 1 through 6.
___________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant attended the Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT)
from 21 August 1995 to 11 May 1997. In accordance with AFI 36-
2107, Table 1.6, Rule 3, dated 6 July 1994, he incurred a four-year
ADSC of 10 May 2001. The applicant’s ADSC for AFIT was not updated
upon his graduation on 11 May 1997. The applicant filed paperwork
for retirement in October 1998, at which time, HQ AFPC/DPPRR
discovered the missing ADSC and updated it; thus, making the
applicant ineligible for retirement unless he obtained an approved
ADSC waiver.
___________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommends that the application be denied. It
concedes that there is no AF Form 63 (Statement of ADSC Counseling)
on file. However, that office suggests that the form may have not
been accomplished due to the Military Personnel Flight (MPF)
clerk’s confusion regarding PCS ADSC counseling, which requires no
documentation and the training ADSC counseling, which occurred
simultaneously prior to the applicant’s entry into AFIT.
The applicant does not categorically deny any knowledge of ADSCs
associated with AFIT. Rather, the applicant provides statements
that he was counseled on two separate occasions regarding an ADSC
associated with AFIT. First, prior to his entry into AFIT in 1995,
the applicant states, “I was informed that I would return for a
tour of no more than 3 years to Air Command and Staff College and
that my actual ADSC would be determined upon completion of my
degree.” They believe the applicant is referring to the standard
tour length associated with his follow-on assignment to Maxwell AFB
after graduation from AFIT and this date is completely unrelated to
any ADSC associated with training. Additionally, the applicant
states he signed “paperwork” in May 97 showing he had a two-year
ADSC for completion of his Master’s degree. They believe the
applicant is referring to his assignment notification RIP and the
two-year ADSC he would receive for his PCS to Maxwell AFB.
Lastly, HQ AFPC/DPPRS states that it is unlikely the applicant
avoided all discussions with his assignment officer, colleagues, or
AFIT staff, which alluded to the ADSC associated with AFIT.
Therefore, the conflicting time frames presented to the applicant
should have led him to research AFI 36-2107, or ask an
authoritative source for clarification of his ADSC for AFIT. It is
obvious from the applicant’s request his superiors are aware of the
ADSC associated with AFIT. Specifically, the Air Command and Staff
College Commandant non-concurred with his request for an ADSC
waiver on 10 November 1998. A complete copy of the advisory
opinion is included as Exhibit C with Attachments 1 and 2.
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Applicant responds to the advisory opinion via e-mail. His
complete response is included as 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 a probable error or an injustice warranting
favorable action on the applicant’s request. Applicant contends
that the ADSC was changed to 10 May 2001 on 3 November 1998 without
notifying him prior to the change; that his ADSC was established as
17 May 1999; that he based his retirement on this date (1 June
1999); and that HQ AFPC has not furnished an AF Form 63 showing he
was committed to the 1 May 2001 date. HQ AFPC/DPPRS concedes that
there is no AF Form 63 (Statement of ADSC Counseling) on file.
However, that office speculates that the form may have not been
accomplished due to the MPF clerk’s confusion regarding PCS ADSC
counseling, which requires no documentation and the training ADSC
counseling, which occurred simultaneously prior to the applicant’s
entry into AFIT.
4. There is no way of determining whether or not the applicant was
timely apprised of the four-year AFIT commitment and given an
opportunity to accept the service commitment voluntarily as
contemplated by Air Force policy. In view of the applicant’s many
years of faithful service to the Air Force, the absence of any
documentation to show that he voluntarily accepted the four-year
ADSC, the fact that the ADSC was not detected until he applied for
retirement, we believe that it would be extremely harsh and,
therefore, unjust, to hold him to the four-year ADSC.
___________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that he incurred a two-
year Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) as a result of his
attendance at the Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT) from
21 August 1995 to 11 May 1997.
___________________________________________________________________
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 14 Nov 98, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 15 Jan 99, w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 1 Feb 99.
Exhibit E. Electronic mail from Applicant, dated 8 Feb 99.
BENEDICT A. KAUSAL IV
Panel Chair
AFBCMR 98-03214
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 he
incurred a two-year Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) as a
result of his attendance at the Air Force Institute of Technology
(AFIT) from 21 August 1995 to 11 May 1997.
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
The applicant stated he was not advised of the proper ADSC until after graduation; however, the AF Form 63 he signed on 21 August 1997, prior to his AFIT start date of 2 September 1997, clearly stated the ADSC he would incur as a result of completing an AFIT degree program. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office and adopt their rationale as the basis for our...
___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was told the ADSC for C-27 training would be lowered from three years to one year by HQ AFPC because the C-27 would be terminated from the Air Force inventory in January 1999; that this reduction was designed to make the commitment commensurate with the existence of the C-27 program; that he volunteered and was accepted for assignment to fly C-27s at Howard AB, Panama, under that understanding;...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1999-03003
___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was told the ADSC for C-27 training would be lowered from three years to one year by HQ AFPC because the C-27 would be terminated from the Air Force inventory in January 1999; that this reduction was designed to make the commitment commensurate with the existence of the C-27 program; that he volunteered and was accepted for assignment to fly C-27s at Howard AB, Panama, under that understanding;...
___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was told the ADSC for C-27 training would be lowered from three years to one year by HQ AFPC because the C-27 would be terminated from the Air Force inventory in January 1999; that this reduction was designed to make the commitment commensurate with the existence of the C-27 program; that he volunteered and was accepted for assignment to fly C-27s at Howard AB, Panama, under that understanding;...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-01720 INDEX CODE: 100.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT) Active Duty Service Commitment be reduced from 6 July 2003 (four years) to 19 March 2001 (three years from the date of his graduation). As noted by the Air Force, although the statement...
___________________________________________________________________ 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....
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...
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...
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.
On 12 March 1998, the applicant was presented an OFFICER/AIRMAN ACTIVE DUTY SERVICE COMMITMENT (ADSC) COUNSELING STATEMENT, AF Form 63, acknowledging that he would incur an eight-year ADSC upon completion of PV4PC (apparently pilot training), but he declined to sign the form. The issue of whether applicant had knowledge of his eight-year commitment becomes muddled because Academy graduates did not sign an AF Form 63 (or any other documentation) specifically setting out the commitment length...