RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-00117
INDEX CODE: 113.04
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Major Weapon System Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) be
reduced by 18 months or as much as the Board deems appropriate for his
circumstances.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Due to several base closures, he got lost in the transition from
Operational Support Aircraft (OSA) to a MWS and spent too much time in
OSA.
He states, in part, that his initial assignment after UPT was a three-
year tour in OSA at Norton AFB, CA. After a base closure at Norton ll
months after he arrived and a unit closure at March AFB, CA, 10 months
after their unit moved there, he spent 2 years and 9 months at
Randolph AFB, TX. All told, he stayed in OSA four years and six
months due to those moves and an inability to procure an assignment to
a MWS prior to May of 1996. When he arrived at Randolph, he did
notify the C-21 assignment officer of his situation and when his three-
year point in OSA occurred. He took note, but informed him that it
would be a while before he got to him. He talked to AFPC periodically
as his time went on at Randolph, but he still stayed there almost
three years. He did not have a designated follow-on assignment after
his C-21 assignment and the quarterly OSA assignment boards
discontinued before he got one. After that, most first assignment OSA
pilots did have a follow-on and he feels that he got lost in the
transition.
When he arrived at McGuire AFB, NJ, he was presented with the
paperwork for his five-year MWS commitment. He did discuss these
previous events with his unit before signing, but they said to sign
the paperwork or he would not be allowed to attend his scheduled
training. He did not know about this application and process until
recently and felt that he had no other options at the time of signing
the five-year commitment. Applicant’s complete statement and
documentary evidence submitted in support of the application are
included as Exhibit A with Attachment 1.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 27 September 1995, the applicant signed an OFFICER ACTIVE DUTY
SERVICE COMMITMENT (ADSC) COUNSELING STATEMENT, AF Form 63, indicating
that he had been counseled that he would incur a five-year ADSC for
completion of Initial Qualification Training (IQT) in the KC-10 from
the course completion date.
Applicant completed the KC-10 IQT on 27 September 1996 and incurred a
five-year ADSC of 26 September 2001.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Assistant Chief, Separations Branch, AFPC, recommends that the
application be denied. He indicates that the applicant signed an AF
Form 63 incurring the five-year ADSC on 27 September 1995. By signing
the AF Form 63, he acknowledged his understanding of the ADSC.
Officers who do not desire to accept the ADSC associated with training
are required to separate from the Air Force in lieu of proceeding with
the training. Officers who accept such training and Assignments
accept the associated ADSC.
Applicant claims he spent too much time in the OSA prior to entry into
his MWS. He claims this occurred because of the numerous base
closures his units were associated with. Based upon their discussions
with the Rated Officer Assignments Branch, HQ AFPC/DPAOM, there is no
evidence to suggest the applicant was denied the opportunity to apply
for a MWS when March AFB closed. According to HQ AFPC/DPAOM, there is
no minimum/maximum tour length in OSA; however, pilots routinely spend
three years in these types of aircraft. 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. They cannot
ascertain why the applicant waited so long to apply for his MWS.
IQT in any MWS incurs a five-year ADSC and this association is very
well known throughout the pilot community. According to the Rated
Assignments Branch, HQ AFPC/DPAOM, the applicant had two options
following his OSA tour. First, he could accept an assignment into a
MWS and incur the associated five-year ADSC. Second, the applicant
could have applied for separation in lieu of the training. The
applicant chose the first option: he accepted training into the KC-10
and incurred a five-year ADSC for the IQT (Exhibit c with Attachments
1 through 3).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the advisory opinion was made available to the applicant for
review and comment in accordance with established policy on 8 February
1999 (Exhibit D). However, he has failed to respond to date.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law
or regulations.
2. The application was timely filed.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of a probable error or an injustice. 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. However, we
do not find this assertion, in and by itself, sufficiently persuasive
so as to override the rationale expressed by the Air Force.
Therefore, we agree with the Air Force and adopt the rationale
expressed as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has
failed to sustain his burden of establishing the existence of either
an error or an injustice warranting favorable action on his request.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not
demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice;
that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and
that the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of
newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with this
application.
_________________________________________________________________
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
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 7 Jan 99.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 22 Jan 99, w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 8 Feb 99.
BENEDICT A. KAUSAL, IV
Panel Chair
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...
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.
It indicates, in part, that the applicant claims he requested (and subsequently was denied) to attend C-141B IQT after having been assigned to XXXX AFB for just 1.5 years in order to “prevent from extending [his] ADSC.” If applicant had been allowed to attend C- 141B IQT at this point in his career (Feb 98), he would have approximately four years and two months left of his UPT ADSC. Applicant believes he was wrong when he stated that applicant “voluntarily requested and accepted the...
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 .
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/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...
A five-year ADSC? and applicant is not. Training ADSCs ............................................................................................................................................... 1.8.
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. ...