RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-01627
INDEX CODE: 113.04
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His two-year Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) incurred as a
result of his permanent change of station (PCS) from Tinker AFB,
Oklahoma, to Sheppard AFB, Texas, on 30 Apr 01 be removed.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was denied his right to pursue the Seven-Day Option, and he did not
fully understand the information pertaining to this program.
In support of his appeal, the applicant provided an expanded
statement, and documentation pertaining to his ADSC and
reclassification.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Information extracted from the Personnel Data System (PDS) indicates
that the applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of
captain, having been promoted to that grade on 20 Feb 02. His Total
Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 27 Oct 97. His ADSC
date is 29 Apr 03.
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are
contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air
Force.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSFO recommended denial, noting that the applicant was medically
disqualified from Air Battle Manager duties on 1 Nov 00 and
reclassified into the 65F Financial Management career field. He was
stationed at Tinker AFB at the time. According to the applicant, he
received assignment options for Brooks or Sheppard AFB on Mar 2001.
He accepted an assignment to Sheppard AFB and reported for duty on 30
Apr 2001. He correctly incurred an ADSC of 29 Apr 03, in accordance
with AFI 36-2107, Active Duty Service Commitments, IC 2001-1 (current
version), Table 1.1, Rule 6.
AFPC/DPSFO indicated that officers who have the required retainability
who do not want to participate in the event and/or do not want the
associated ADSC, must report in person to the Military Personnel
Flight (MPF) within seven calendar days of notification and must sign
an AF Form 63, (Officer/Airman ADSC Acknowledgement Statement) for
declination of ADSC and submit an application for separation or
retirement, if eligible, under the Seven-Day Option provisions. They
contacted the Tinker NCOIC of Outbound Assignments and she had no
recollection of applicant’s situation. They could not get a copy of
the Personnel Data printout the applicant signed since they are
maintained at the local level for only 90 days. According to AFI 36-
2107, Active Duty Service Commitments, IC 2001-1, paragraph 2.10-
1.2.2, the MPF commander briefs members on Seven-Day option, using the
statements for ADSC declination. On page two of the Notification of
Selection for Reassignment Personnel Data printout in paragraph two,
it clearly states that if an individual requires immediate counseling
on any matters, they should contact Personnel Relocations. AFPC/DPSFO
stated that they did not know if the member overlooked this statement
on the RIP or why he did not exercise his option to contact the MPF
for further guidance on the Seven-Day Option.
AFPC/DPSFO noted the applicant’s allegation that the 552nd Training
Squadron Commander would not entertain a Seven-Day Option and he
blocked him from pursuing his right to elect the Seven-Day Option.
They contacted applicant’s former commander and he contended that as
far as the standard AFPC and MPF assignment notification, his
understanding was (and still is) that everything was in order, the
applicant attended mandatory out-processing briefings at the MPF and
accepted the assignment to Sheppard AFB. They also contacted the
applicant’s former section commander and she stated the applicant was
never denied his right to Seven-Day Option. There was no evidence to
corroborate the applicant’s version of events that he was denied his
right to pursue the Seven-Day Option.
According to AFPC/DPSFO, the instrument to record official
notification and acknowledgement of a PCS and ADSC for members (that
are not retirement eligible) is the PCS Notification RIP. They
reviewed a notification of Selection for Reassignment RIP for an
officer. On page two, paragraph three of the Personnel Data printout
it clearly states: “If you accept this assignment you will incur the
following ADSCs for PCS:” Then it listed the Continental United
States (CONUS) to CONUS and CONUS to overseas choices. Additionally,
on page three of the printout, it clearly gives members an option to
accept or decline the PCS and associated ADSC. On page four of the
printout, it states: “I understand my application for
separation/retirement must be signed and submitted to the MPF within
seven calendar days of the date notified by my commander of PCS
selection. I understand if I do not apply for separation or
retirement and if I do not decline the ADSC in writing on AF Form 63,
within the prescribed timeframe, I will be considered as having
accepted the assignment and ADSC.” The applicant signed/accepted the
PCS assignment and accurately received a two-year ADSC.
In AFPC/DPSFO’s view, the evidence clearly indicated that the
applicant was correctly notified of his rights and obligations. He
was properly assigned to his new duty station and his ADSC for this
assignment was in accordance with Air Force policy.
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSFO evaluation, with attachment, is at
Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 21
Jun 02 for review and response. As of this date, no response has been
received by this office (Exhibit C).
_________________________________________________________________
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 error or injustice. The applicant's complete
submission was thoroughly reviewed and his contentions were duly
noted. However, we do not find the applicant’s assertions or the
documentation submitted in support of his appeal sufficiently
persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force office
of primary responsibility (OPR). Therefore, in the absence of clear-
cut evidence that the applicant’s ADSC date was erroneous, he was
denied rights to which he was entitled, he was not properly advised,
or that he was treated differently from similarly situated
individuals, we agree with the recommendation of the OPR and adopt
their rationale as the basis for our decision that the applicant has
failed to sustain his burden of establishing that he has suffered
either an error or an injustice. Accordingly, 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 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 AFBCMR Docket Number 02-
01627 in Executive Session on 14 Aug 02, under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:
Mr. Albert F. Lowas, Jr., Panel Chair
Mr. Thomas J. Topolski, Member
Mr. Grover L. Dunn, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 27 Apr 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSFO, undated.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Jun 02.
ALBERT F. LOWAS, JR.
Panel Chair
___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Knowing that he had a six-year ADSC, he took TA to run concurrently with his Air Force Academy commitment; that unknown to him, the applicable Air Force Instruction (AFI 36-2107) was re-written in June of 2000 stating that the ADSC for service academy graduates is five years; that sometime during his tour at Elmendorf, his ADSC changed from six years to five years, but he was never informed by his...
AFPC/DPSFO noted that the applicant graduated UPT in Nov 95 and incurred an eight-year ADSC in accordance with Air Force Instruction 36-2107, Active Duty Service Commitments (ADSC) and Specified Period of Time Contracts (SPTC), Table 1.4, Rule 6, dated 6 Jul 94. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSFO evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In her response, the applicant indicated that the original...
This generated a training allocation notification R I T , which clearly indicated a three-year RDSC would be incurred, and applicant was required to initial the following statements on the RIP, I I I accept training and will obtain the required retainability" and ''1 understand upon completion of this training I will incur the following active duty service commitments (ADSC) ' I . Although documentation of counseling does not exist and applicant denies that it occurred, they believe it's a...
___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC) added a training commitment that he was not counseled about and did not agree to; that it is unfair for this commitment to be added almost one year after the training was completed; that he was counseled that the commitment would only be two years since he was a prior T-38 instructor pilot (IP); and that he was not asked to sign for a three-year commitment on an...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04772
On 19 Sep 11, the applicant acknowledged the new ADSC of 9 Feb 15 and agreed to the new training dates by signing the AF Form 63, ADSC Acknowledgement Statement. Instead, she accepted the training and agreed to the ADSC that began upon completion of the ADSC incurring event. On 19 Sep 11, the applicant received and acknowledged the ADSC and agreed to the new training dates.
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 | CY2013 | BC 2013 00018
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-00018 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His active duty service commitment (ADSC) incurred for advanced flying training (AFT) be changed from 1 May 15 to 14 Jan 14. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of...
At the time of his selection for crossflow into the E-4B training and subsequent PCS to Of futt , his assignment action officer, Major "C" , noted in the assignment worksheet trailer remarks section, 'Compute ADSC IAW AFI 36-2107, T1.9, R1 for PCS and T1.5, R1 for training. However, one cannot ignore the fact that the ADSC was clearly noted on the assignment notification message and, in the absence of an AF Form 63, that message served as the source document for the officer's acknowledgment...
However, although documentation of that counseling does not exist, applicant denies that it occurred, and a copy of the PCS notification RIP is no longer available to permit verification of applicant's signature accepting the assignment, they believe it's a reasonable presumption that competent counseling was provided and that applicant was in fact aware of the ADSC which would be incurred for training (Exhibit C with Attachments 1 through 6). The Air not exist, applicant denies that it...
___________________________________________________________________ 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;...