Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9901920
Original file (9901920.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                       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.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

At the time he was briefed of the five-year KC-135 IQT ADSC, it was
not made clear that  the  Air  Force  was  actually  extending  his
original UPT contract; that he faithfully assumed the new  contract
delivered him to his agreed 8-year point and  the  Form  63  was  a
formality that all pilots  receive;  and  that  had  he  been  told
specifically that this new contract would commit him to eight  more
months of active duty, not concurrent with his original  UPT  ADSC,
he may have been able to ask  more  informed  questions  about  his
options.

Applicant’s complete statement and documentary  evidence  submitted
in support of his  application  are  included  as  Exhibit  A  with
Attachments.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant completed KC-135 IQT on 19 August  1998  and  received  a
five-year ADSC of 18 August 2003.  The applicant believes  his  KC-
135 IQT ADSC should not exceed his 23 January 2003 UPT ADSC.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS  recommends  that  the  application  be  denied.   It
indicates that the applicant believes the Air Force  should  reduce
the length of the five-year ADSC he voluntarily  agreed  to  accept
and fulfill simply because it goes beyond his UPT obligation  of  8
years.  Unfortunately, he has  taken  two  separate  ADSC-incurring
events and applied faulty logic in asserting the UPT  ADSC  as  his
preeminent commitment, overriding all other obligations to the  Air
Force.

The AF Forms 63 he signed on 26 February 1998 and 7 May 1998 for KC-
135 IQT specifically informed  him  of  the  option  to  submit  an
application for separation with 7 calendar  days  if  he  chose  to
decline the ADSC.  Therefore, if his desire was  to  separate  from
the Air Force upon the expiration of his UPT ADSC, he  should  have
declined the ADSC at  that  time  (Exhibit  C  with  Attachments  1
through 3).

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states, in part, that contrary to the  advisory  writer’s
assessment, it is not his  desire  to  find  the  quickest  way  to
separate from the Air Force.  He is a prior  enlisted  officer  who
committed to military service in 1983.  It has been and remains his
hope to serve 20 years or more with the Air Force.

The basis of his contention rests with the  fact  that  pilots  who
select non-MWS aircraft upon graduation from UPT will, unknowingly,
be required to serve more than their contracted eight years due  to
accruing a five-year IQT ADSC nearly four years into their  service
tour.  Their peers who go directly to MWS aircraft absorb this same
five-year ADSC only five months after UPT and as  such,  is  easily
concurrent with the eight-year UPT ADSC.

To continue in  non-MWS  aircraft  is  not  an  option.   The  AETC
Pipeline Manager told him in late 1997, “... you aren’t much use to
the Air Force until you are MWS qualified.”  He didn’t  believe  he
was that invaluable, but he understood his meaning.

The right thing to do is to make this known to UPT students  before
they select their assignments so they can make the  most  objective
choice based on their career intentions.  He is not saying that had
he known he would be extended that he wouldn’t have chosen to be  a
first assignment T-37 Instructor Pilot, but at least he would  have
been properly informed and aware of the extra obligation before  he
committed.  Applicant's complete statement 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.  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 of primary responsibility and  adopt  their
rationale as the basis for our conclusion that  the  applicant  has
not been the victim of an error or injustice.   Therefore,  in  the
absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to
recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

___________________________________________________________________

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 12 November 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 26 Jul 99, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 18 Oct 99, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 29 Oct 99.
    Exhibit E.  Letter from Applicant, dated 27 Oct 99.




                                   BENEDICT A. KAUSAL IV
                                   Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2000 | BC-1999-01920

    Original file (BC-1999-01920.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY1999 | 9901416

    Original file (9901416.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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.

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9900117

    Original file (9900117.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. 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.

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9900292

    Original file (9900292.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0001931

    Original file (0001931.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1999-01243

    Original file (BC-1999-01243.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    ___________________________________________________________________ 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9901243

    Original file (9901243.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    ___________________________________________________________________ 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2000 | 0001613

    Original file (0001613.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Therefore, he requests that the three years spent in a non-flying assignment be considered as part of his current ADSC as it is for all those who were “banked.” If his ADSC is amended to March 2003, he will have served 11 years in the Air Force, which he feels is commensurate with the training he has received and is a longer TAFMSD than many of the “banked” pilots he graduated with. Applicant’s request is at Exhibit A. They are of the opinion that the time that matters is that time served...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0001613

    Original file (0001613.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Therefore, he requests that the three years spent in a non-flying assignment be considered as part of his current ADSC as it is for all those who were “banked.” If his ADSC is amended to March 2003, he will have served 11 years in the Air Force, which he feels is commensurate with the training he has received and is a longer TAFMSD than many of the “banked” pilots he graduated with. Many 1992 USAFA graduates did attend pilot training as a first assignment, and were subsequently placed in a...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1998 | 9801125

    Original file (9801125.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    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 .