RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-02402
INDEX NUMBER: 113.04
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) for attendance at the Air
Force Institute of Technology (AFIT) be reduced to three years.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His record shows an ADSC through 29 May 2003, which is a 50-month
commitment -- 14 months longer than he was told it would be and what
is specified in the current AFI 36-2107. He was told by both AFIT and
base personnel before he PCS-ed to AFIT that he would incur a three-
year commitment after graduation and that the AFIT commitment would
run concurrently with other commitments. He read the article in the
Air Force Times about the simplification of ADSCs, which prompted his
application. He believes a fair commitment for an AFIT master’s
degree is three years.
The application is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 21 August 1997, the applicant signed AF Form 63, Officer Active
Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) Counseling Statement, acknowledging
that he would incur an ADSC of three times the length of training,
with a maximum of four years for undergraduate/masters level. He
completed a master’s degree program at AFIT, and was awarded a four-
year ADSC. His ADSC date is 29 May 2003.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Chief, Active Duty Service Commitments Branch, AFPC/DPSFO,
recommended disapproval. The applicant stated he was not advised of
the proper ADSC until after graduation; however, the AF Form 63 he
signed on 21 August 1997, prior to his AFIT start date of 2 September
1997, clearly stated the ADSC he would incur as a result of completing
an AFIT degree program. Although he maintains that AFIT and base
personnel told him his ADSC would be three years after graduation,
AFPC/DPSFO believes the AF Form 63 he signed clearly stated the proper
ADSC.
At the time the applicant completed the program, AFIT ADSCs were
determined using a formula-based method resulting in the longer of two
computations. AFIT ADSCs were considered fair and equitable for many
years prior to the recent change of AFI 36-2107. The Secretary of the
Air Force chose not to retroactively apply the new ADSCs prescribed by
the 1 June 2000 version of AFI 36-2107 to members who were properly
counseled and accepted ADSCs under the previous rules. A change to
AFI 36-2107 is not, in and of itself, adequate justification for a
reduction of an ADSC a member was correctly advised of and entered
into prior to that change.
The applicant states that an Air Force Times article stated the ADSC
instruction was being changed because it was confusing, which made it
unfair. While the previous instruction may have been confusing, the
Secretary never established that the previous ADSC rules were unfair.
The AFPC/DPSFO evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on
22 November 2000, for review and response, within 30 days (Exhibit D).
He did not 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. 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 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 8 February 2001, 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 27 Aug 2000.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSFO, dated 7 Nov 2000, w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 22 Nov 2000.
BENEDICT A. KAUSAL,IV
Panel Chair
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-01720 INDEX CODE: 100.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT) Active Duty Service Commitment be reduced from 6 July 2003 (four years) to 19 March 2001 (three years from the date of his graduation). As noted by the Air Force, although the statement...
___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommends that the application be denied. First, prior to his entry into AFIT in 1995, the applicant states, “I was informed that I would return for a tour of no more than 3 years to Air Command and Staff College and that my actual ADSC would be determined upon completion of my degree.” They believe the applicant is referring to the standard tour length associated with his follow-on...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-01587 INDEX CODE: 113.04 APPLICANT COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His current Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) be corrected to reflect 19 Dec 00 to coincide with the three-year ADSC he incurred upon completion of his graduate level Air Force sponsored Master's degree. His corrected AFIT...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 03048
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03048 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His active duty service commitment (ADSC) of 6 May 20 be changed to 22 May 17. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIPV evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: He initially signed an AF Form 63 which reflected the three-year concurrent ADSC he was counseled he would...
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...
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.
On 12 March 1998, the applicant was presented an OFFICER/AIRMAN ACTIVE DUTY SERVICE COMMITMENT (ADSC) COUNSELING STATEMENT, AF Form 63, acknowledging that he would incur an eight-year ADSC upon completion of PV4PC (apparently pilot training), but he declined to sign the form. The issue of whether applicant had knowledge of his eight-year commitment becomes muddled because Academy graduates did not sign an AF Form 63 (or any other documentation) specifically setting out the commitment length...
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,...
AFI 36-2107 clearly states an ADSC is incurred when training is complete. Had the applicant completed training 22 days early, his ADSC would have reflected his actual graduation date and not the “planned” date. Exhibit B.