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
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. ...
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.
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.
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...
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
___________________________________________________________________ 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...
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...
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...
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 .