RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-00967
COUNSEL: NONE
INDEX NUMBER: 113.04
HEARING DESIRED: NO
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) be changed from
28 September 2000 to 8 September 2000.
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
While enrolled in T-1A Pilot Instructor Training (PIT), the 99th
Fighter Training Squadron experienced a maintenance “shutdown” of
approximately three weeks due to a lack of qualified maintenance
personnel; and that, since this was an Air Force maintenance issue
and not anything he contributed to, he should not have to incur the
extra 22 days past his planned graduation date.
Applicant states, in part, that Major “S” from AFMPC assured him
that his ADSC would reflect his planned graduation date of 8
September 1997. He also discussed this situation with his squadron
commander and she agrees a change in his ADSC is warranted. This
ADSC adjustment has already been granted for another Laughlin T-1
PIT who experienced the same delay as his class.
Applicant’s complete statement is included as Exhibit A.
___________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant completed T-1 PIT on 1 October 1997 and incurred a three-
year ADSC of 30 September 2000.
___________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommends that the application be denied. That
office states, in part, that the crux of the applicant’s argument
surrounds his “planned” graduation date. AFI 36-2107 clearly
states an ADSC is incurred when training is complete. Often,
unforeseen problems arise which prevent courses from being
completed on a “planned” date and the system is designed to have
flexibility for such events as weather or maintenance problems.
Had the applicant completed training 22 days early, his ADSC would
have reflected his actual graduation date and not the “planned”
date. The applicant signed an AF Form 63 on 10 September 1997,
which shows he willingly accepted a three-year ADSC for T-1 PIT
“upon completion of training (Atch 3).”
In support of his request, the applicant makes several other
claims. First, the applicant claims he spoke to Major “S” at HQ
AFPC and Major “S” assured him his ADSC would reflect his “planned”
graduation date of 8 September 1997. Based upon this claim, they
spoke personally with Major “S”, HQ AFPC/DPAOM, and he confirms
speaking with the applicant; however, Major “S” never promised the
applicant his ADSC for T-1 PIT would reflect his “planned”
graduation date. Major “S” stated he informed the applicant he
could appeal the ADSC to the AFBCMR. Additionally, the applicant
claims the ADSC adjustment he is requesting was granted to another
T-1 Instructor who experienced the same delay. They assume the
applicant is referring to an application which was filed at the
same time as his by another T-1 Instructor and which is verbatim to
his request. This is an erroneous assumption on the applicant’s
part since a decision has not been made on that application and
they know of no other approvals based upon similar circumstances
(Exhibit C with Attachments 1 through 3).
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Applicant’s response to the Air Force evaluation 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. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to
demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.
Applicant’s contentions that while enrolled in T-1A PIT, the 99th
Fighter Training Squadron experienced a maintenance “shutdown” of
approximately three weeks due to a lack of qualified maintenance
personnel; and that, since this was an Air Force maintenance issue
and not anything he contributed to, he should not have to incur the
extra 22 days past his planned graduation date are duly noted.
However, we do not find these assertions, in and by themselves,
sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the
Air Force. Therefore, we agree with the recommendation of the Air
Force and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our
conclusion that the applicant has not been a victim of an error or
an injustice to the extent 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 12 Apr 99.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 26 May 99, w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 21 Jul 99.
Exhibit E. Letter from Applicant, dated 22 Jun 99, w/atchs.
BENEDICT A. KAUSAL IV
Panel Chair
Had the applicant completed training 22 days early, his ADSC would have reflected his actual graduation date and not the “planned” date. Second, there is an officer in his squadron who was delayed approximately 30 days due to the same maintenance problems at Randolph PIT and, without request, had his ADSC reflect his earlier planned graduation date. He also does not recall SRA R” counseling him that if he were delayed due to reasons beyond his control, in his case maintenance problems,...
___________________________________________________________________ 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...
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...
___________________________________________________________________ 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....
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. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2000 | BC-1999-01920
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. ...
Therefore, the applicant’s ADSC in the PDS should reflect a date of 20 July 2002. While they do not support the applicant’s request to change his ADSC to 26 June 2002, they do recommend the ADSC be changed to 20 July 2002 based upon the AF Form 475 (Exhibit C). ___________________________________________________________________ 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...
A five-year ADSC? and applicant is not. Training ADSCs ............................................................................................................................................... 1.8.
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...