RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-01002
INDEX NUMBER: 113.04
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) be changed from 27 July
2002 to 27 June 2002.
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Since the date of his graduation from Class 97-BBG was 27 June
1997, his correct ADSC should be 27 June 2002.
In support of his appeal, applicant provides a copy of his
graduation class official booklet (Attachment 1 to Exhibit A).
___________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
According to the applicant’s AF Form 475, Education/Training
Report, he completed F-16 Initial Qualification Training (IQT) on
21 July 1997. In accordance with the prevailing AFI, he incurred a
five-year ADSC of 20 July 2002. However, the Personnel Data System
(PDS) erroneously reflects his ADSC as 27 July 2002. Prior to
attending the F-16 IQT, the applicant, on 6 November 1996, signed
an Air Force Form 63, ADSC Counseling Statement, accepting the five-
year ADSC.
___________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommends that the application be denied. That
office states, in part, that as evidence to support his claim, the
applicant provides a copy of his graduation booklet in his appeal
package. While this booklet shows graduation ceremonies for his
class were held on 27 June 1997, this is not an official Air Force
document and cannot be construed as such. Based upon the official
AF Form 475, the applicant completed F-16 IQT on 21 July 1997.
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).
___________________________________________________________________
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
28 June 1999 (Exhibit D); however, to date, he has declined to
respond.
___________________________________________________________________
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. Applicant
contends that since the date of his graduation from Class 97-BBG
was 27 June 1997, his correct ADSC should be “27 June 2002” (sic).
In support of his contention, he provides a copy of his graduation
class official booklet reflecting that the graduation ceremony was
held on 27 June 1997. The Air Force recommends that the
application be denied. It is indicated that while the booklet in
question shows graduation ceremonies for applicant’s class were
held on 27 June 1997, this is not an official Air Force document
and cannot be construed as such. Based upon the official AF Form
475, Education/Training Report, the applicant completed F-16 IQT on
21 July 1997. Therefore, his ADSC in the personnel data system
(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. We disagree. Since the Air Force cannot
convincingly show the applicant’s precise graduation date and in
light of the applicant’s assertion, with full knowledge of the
penalties involved for willfully making a false statement or claim,
we believe the benefit of the doubt should be resolved in his
favor.
___________________________________________________________________
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 five-
year Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) of 26 June 2002 as a
result of his completion of F-16 Initial Qualification Training
(IQT) on 21 July 1997.
___________________________________________________________________
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 12 Apr 99, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 11 Jun 99, w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 28 Jun 99.
BENEDICT A. KAUSAL IV
Panel Chair
AFBCMR 99-01002
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 five-year Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) of 26 June 2002
as a result of his completion of F-16 Initial Qualification
Training (IQT) on 21 July 1997.
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
___________________________________________________________________ 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;...
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.
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. ...
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...
___________________________________________________________________ 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 | 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...