RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-00252
INDEX NUMBER: 100.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His three-year Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) incurred as a result
of his completion of T-37 Pilot Instructor Training be reduced by 16
months.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
An unrealistic Undergraduate Pilot Training (UPT) assignment process, an
involuntary assignment extension, and poor career counseling have led to a
forecast ADSC of 16 months longer than he originally contracted.
Applicant’s complete statement setting forth the reasons he believes the
relief should be granted is included as Attachment 1 to Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant flew the C-21 for approximately three and one-half years before
cross training into the C-141. Upon completion of C-141 Initial
Qualification Training (IQT), he flew the C-141 for approximately two and
one-half years before volunteering to become a T-37 Instructor Pilot. He
attended T-37 Pilot Instructor Training (PIT) from 13 September 2000 to 5
January 2001 and is now assigned to Laughlin AFB as a T-37 instructor
pilot.
In accordance with AFI 36-2107, Active Duty Service Commitments, dated 15
March 1992 (version in effect at the time), Table 4, Rule 6, the applicant
incurred an eight-year ADSC for completion of UPT (27 September 2002). He
incurred an additional five-year ADSC (27 May 2003) for completion of C-141
IQT in accordance with AFI 36-2107, dated 6 July 1994 (version in effect at
the time), Table l.5, Rule l. Finally, he incurred a three-year ADSC
(4 January 2004) for completion of T-37 PIT in accordance with AFI 36-2107,
dated 1 June 2000 (version in effect at the time, Table 1.1, Rule ll.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSFO responds to the applicant’s contentions and recommends that the
application be denied. In closing, that office states that the applicant
made several career decisions resulting in his receipt of valuable Air
Force training. Although he cites specific reasons for the decisions he
made, the Air Force did not unfairly or unjustly assign his associated
ADSCs. In regard to his PIT ADSC, the applicant was properly counseled in
advance and agreed to serve the three-year ADSC. The applicant entered
into this agreement fully informed of the obligation he would incur. He
now seeks to avoid the commitment he voluntarily entered. Even if the
applicant’s request to reduce his PIT ADSC by 16 months is approved his C-
141 IQT ADSC will remain, obligating him through 27 May 2003. The
applicant has not provided sufficient justification to support his request
(Exhibit C with Attachments 1 through 3).
_________________________________________________________________
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 4 May 2001
(Exhibit D); however, to date, he has failed 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. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of a probable error or an 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 substantial evidence to the
contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief
sought.
_________________________________________________________________
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 5 June 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Charles E. Bennett, Panel Chair
Mr. Henry Romo, Jr., Member
Mrs. Barbara A. Westgate, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 24 Jan 01, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSFO, dated 20 Apr 01, w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 4 May 01.
CHARLES E. BENNETT
Panel Chair
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...
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 10 September 1997, the applicant signed an AF Form 63, OFFICER/AIRMAN ACTIVE DUTY SERVICE COMMITMENT (ADSC) COUNSELING STATEMENT, indicating that he acknowledged and agreed to, among other things, incur a 36-month ADSC for W-MCE-l3BD1 under Table 1.5, Rule 5, AFI 36-2107 (See Applicant’s Attachment 1). However, the applicant never states he was confused about the length of his ADSC prior to start of...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-01229 INDEX CODE: 113.04 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Joint Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training (JSUPT) Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) be reduced from ten (10) years to eight (8) years; and, that the start date of his ADSC be changed from Mar 01 to Jan 99. He was cleared...
A five-year ADSC? and applicant is not. Training ADSCs ............................................................................................................................................... 1.8.
___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His six-year UNT ADSC is incorrect because Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2107, Active Duty Service Commitments (ADSC) and Specified Period of Time Contracts (SPTC), dated 1 September 1998, Table 1.4, Note 3b, states, “Individuals graduating from military service academies and AFROTC programs on 1 January 1992 or later incur a 5- year and 4-year ADSC respectively.” Applicant’s complete statement and...
___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His six-year UNT ADSC is incorrect because Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2107, Active Duty Service Commitments (ADSC) and Specified Period of Time Contracts (SPTC), dated 1 September 1998, Table 1.4, Note 3b, states, “Individuals graduating from military service academies and AFROTC programs on 1 January 1992 or later incur a 5- year and 4-year ADSC respectively.” Applicant’s complete statement and...
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.
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 | 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...