RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-00408
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 Undergraduate Air Battle Manager (ABM)
Training be reduced to two years.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The three-year ADSC for ABM training is inaccurate; and that according
to Formal Training, his ADSC should have been two years, rather than
three.
Applicant’s complete statement and the documentary evidence submitted
in support of his application are included as Exhibit A with
Attachments 1 through 6.
_________________________________________________________________
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).
AFI 36-2107, dated 1 September 1998, Table 1.7, Rule 2, prescribed a 3-
year ADSC for any technical (non-flying) training 20 or more weeks but
less than 12 months in duration. Although the ABM career field is not
considered “flying,” prior to 1 October 1999, it was considered
“technical” (non-flying) training. Therefore, the three-year ADSC
cited in Table 1.7, Rule 2 is correct.
The Personnel Data System (PDS) did not reflect an ADSC for the
applicant’s completion of Undergraduate ABM Training until HQ AFPC
discovered the error and updated it. This discovery was made as part
of a standard ADSC review associated with member’s application for
separation in the Fall of 2000.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPSFO recommends denial of the application. That office
states, in part, that the applicant acknowledged and agreed to a three-
year ADSC by signing an AF Form 63 on 10 September 1997. They do not
believe errors in the course, table, and rule citation on the form (in
the applicant’s own words, “typographical errors”), negate the
validity of an ADSC that is clearly stated on the form.
The applicant points to several instances of confusion pertaining to
guidance on ABM ADSCs. They readily admit that prior to the
publication of the 1 June 2000 version of AFI 36-2107, differences
between Undergraduate ABM Training and AWACS IQT often confused
personnel working in the Military Personnel Flights (MPFs) who had the
responsibility of counseling members on their ADSCs using AFI 36-2107
and AF Forms 63. However, the applicant never states he was confused
about the length of his ADSC prior to start of training. They see no
reason why an MPF counselor’s apparent confusion surrounding table,
rule, and course citation should override the applicant’s clear
acknowledgement of the actual ADSC length he would incur.
Applicant references the AFPC website as proof that prior to
1 June 2000, the “commitment for ABMs was 2 years.” This information
was erroneous and has since been revised. However, this information
was not published on the website until 2000 -- after the applicant had
started and completed his training. Therefore, the member could not
have possibly used this information when making his decision whether
or not to accept the ADSC for Undergraduate ABM Training.
In closing, HQ AFPC/DPSFO states that although the applicant has
provided clear evidence of confusion in the field regarding the
difference in ADSC length for Undergraduate ABM Training and AWACS
IQT, he has not provided sufficient evidence that this confusion
directly affected him or that he was not properly counseled on this
ADSC (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 on 6 April 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 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 29 May 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 1 Feb 01, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSFO, dated 28 Mar 01.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 6 Apr 01.
CHARLES E. BENNETT
Panel Chair
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. Even if the applicant’s request to reduce his PIT ADSC by 16 months is approved his...
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. 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...
___________________________________________________________________ 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;...
A five-year ADSC? and applicant is not. Training ADSCs ............................................................................................................................................... 1.8.
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...
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...
___________________________________________________________________ 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...