RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-03231
INDEX CODE: 113.04
COUNSEL: Gary R. Myers
HEARING DESIRED: NO
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) of August 5, 2002 for
completion of F-16 Initial Qualification Training (IQT) on August 6,
1997, be changed to October 23, 1999.
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Because of misrepresentations by the Air Force, his ADSC was extended to
August 5, 2002; that these misrepresentations, which caused him to
believe his ADSC was October 23, 1999, and his training would have no
impact upon that date, were material misrepresentations upon which he
reasonably relied; and that an unwarranted and illegal extension of his
ADSC will work to his substantial detriment.
Counsel’s complete submission is included as Exhibit A with Tabs A
through E.
___________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Prior to electing to attend F-16 Initial Qualification Training (IQT),
the applicant acknowledged receipt and understanding that he would incur
a two-year ADSC for the permanent change of station (PCS) only. There is
no entry in Section II, paragraph 3b, indicating an ADSC for the flying
training. Applicant signed this document on 17 July 1997 (Tab C to
Exhibit A).
He completed the F-16 IQT on 6 August 1997. In accordance with AFI 36-
2107, Table 1.5, Rule 1, he received a five-year ADSC of 5 August 2002.
However, the five-year ADSC was not updated in his records upon
completion of the training. HQ AFPC/DPPRS discovered the missing ADSC
when the applicant applied for separation in June 1998 and updated his
records to reflect the five-year ADSC. This action rendered the
applicant ineligible for separation unless he obtained an approved ADSC
waiver.
___________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommends that the application be denied. It indicates
that although the applicant may not have been formally counseled or
didn’t sign an AF Form 63, they believe it is reasonable to assume that
he was made aware of his ADSC via the Air Force Training Management
System (AFTMS) Report on Individual Person (RIP), assignment message, or
even informal conversations with classmates, instructors, and/or
supervisors. Lastly, they can detect no significant harm the applicant
has experienced or will experience as a result of servicing his
legitimate commitment. They do not consider a deferred opportunity to
seek post-Air Force employment significant harm or hardship. Given the
Air Force’s critical need for experienced pilots, it is of vital
importance to the Air Force mission to retain applicant’s services for
the full tenure of his ADSC (Exhibit C with Attachments 1 through 5).
___________________________________________________________________
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. They also stipulated that these forms would have
had a five-year commitment attached to them. The fact is that his
records indicate he signed nothing to extend his ADSC. He accepted his
assignment based on a separation date of October 1999.
Second, we can look at the events that occurred at Luke AFB, AZ. Here
there is specific documentation of his acceptance of a two-year PCS
commitment - nothing further. The documentation shows no five-year
commitment because he was counseled that his ADSC would remain October
1999. More importantly, AFPC fails to explain why this signed
contractual agreement should be considered null and void.
He cannot believe that under these circumstances any normal person could
conclude anything other than that his commitment would end in October
1999. Every time he checked his records for accuracy at Shaw AFB, his
ADSC was documented as October 1999. However, during August 1998, in
response to numerous ADSC documentation errors, AFPC decided to
automatically make a change to his existing records (one year prior to
his planned departure from the Air Force). 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. Upon discovery of
AFPC’s actions to adjust his records, he aggressively sought legal
assistance to resolve the injustice. Now, four months prior to his
planned execution of terminal leave and final separation, he is still
fighting to have his records corrected (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 the applicant’s request. Applicant contends that because of
misrepresentations by the Air Force, his ADSC was extended to August 5,
2002; that these misrepresentations, which caused him to believe his ADSC
was October 23, 1999, and his training would have no impact upon that
date, were material misrepresentations upon which he reasonably relied;
and that an unwarranted and illegal extension of his ADSC will work to
his substantial detriment. On the other hand, the Air Force states that
although the applicant may not have been formally counseled or didn’t
sign an AF Form 63, it believes it is reasonable to assume that he was
made aware of his ADSC via the Air Force Training Management System
(AFTMS) Report on Individual Person (RIP), assignment message, or even
informal conversations with classmates, instructors, and/or supervisors.
We disagree. Since the Air Force can only speculate that the applicant
was timely apprised of the five-year F-16 IQT ADSC, the benefit of the
doubt should be resolved in his favor by voiding the five-year IQT ADSC.
In arriving at our decision, we note that the only documentation
available (Notification of Selection for Reassignment) used by the
applicant’s commander to counsel him reflects no training ADSC. We also
note that the applicant completed the training on 6 August 1997 and
incurred the five-year ADSC. However, the ADSC was not updated into the
applicant’s records until he applied for separation in June 1998.
_________________________________________________________________
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) incurred as a result of his completion of
F-16 Initial Qualification Training on 6 August 1997 be declared void.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered this application in
Executive Session on 21 July 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 10 November 1998, with
attachments.
Exhibit B. Microfiche copy of Applicant's Master Personnel
Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 15 January 1999.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 8 February 1998.
Exhibit E. Letter from Counsel, dated 15 February 1999.
Exhibit F. Letter from AFBCMR, dated 24 February 1999.
Exhibit G. Letter from Applicant, dated 20 April 1999.
BENEDICT A. KAUSAL, IV
Panel Chair
AFBCMR 98-03231
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 toAPPLICANT be corrected to show that the five-year Active Duty
Service Commitment (ADSC) incurred as a result of his completion of F-16
Initial Qualification Training on 6 August 1997 be, and hereby is, declared
void.
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
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,...
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...
Despite this, the applicant claims the MPF stated he had to accept the C-141 training because he had three and one-half years remaining on his UPT ADSC. Despite Block II of the AF Form 63 not being initialed, the applicant signed the AF Form 63 reflecting the correct ADSC and thus accepted the ADSC (Exhibit C with Attachments 1 through 4). In this case, however, the applicant has presented persuasive evidence that he agreed to the C-141 IQT training under the assumption that he would incur...
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...
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. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air...
_________________________________________________________________ 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...
Applicant states in his appeal that his “intention has been to separate from the Air Force’’ upon completion of his ADSC from UPT, ever, when he was selected for a follow-on September 199 assignment to :AFB, applicant was given the opportunity to state his intent by declining the assignment in writing at the time he received his initial relocation briefing. We agree with the Air Force that the applicant was made aware of the five-year C-130 IQT ADSC at the time of his relocation briefing. ...
A five-year ADSC? and applicant is not. Training ADSCs ............................................................................................................................................... 1.8.
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 .