RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-02221
INDEX CODE: 113.04
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her three-year Active Duty Service Commitment Date (ADSCD) resulting
from the Air Force Intern Program (AFIP) be waived.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The three-year AFIP ADSC was based on her attendance in the graduate-
level coursework at George Washington University (GWU) in conjunction
with the AFIP. However, due to a recent change in the AFIP policy
that allows only those officers who do not already have a graduate-
level degree to attend the GWU portion, she was not selected to attend
GWU. Consequently, she and 14 other interns will not be receiving any
of the advanced education assistance on which the ADSC is based and
for which the ADSC was agreed.
In support of her request, the applicant submits a copy of her AF Form
63 (Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) Acknowledgment Statement), a
copy of a memorandum for Major General O’R---, copies of HQ AFPC
messages concerning AFIP, HQ USAF/DPLE messages concerning the
modifications to AFIP and additional documents associated with the
issues cited in his contentions. The applicant’s complete submission,
with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Information extracted from the Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS)
reveals the applicant’s Total Federal Commissioned Service Date
(TFCSD) as 26 November 1994. She was progressively promoted to the
grade of captain, with an effective date and date of rank of 4 July
1998. The applicant is currently assigned to the Pentagon as an Air
Force intern, with an ADSCD of 21 August 2008.
Information extracted from applicant’s submission reveals the AF Form
63, ADSC Acknowledgement Statement, signed on 17 January 2003,
indicates that the three-year ADSC she incurred was for the Air Force
Intern Program (AFIP).
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPAPE states that the three-year ADSC is consistent with all
USAF developmental education programs at or over one-year in length.
The three-year ADSC associated with AFIP is not and has never been
contingent upon the graduate-level coursework/degree at GWU,
therefore, the basis of the applicant’s ADSC waiver is invalid. The
HQ AFPC/DPAPE evaluation is at Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and indicated that it is
true that the AFIP ADSC is not contingent on the graduate degree;
specifically, the master’s degree in Organizational Management from
George Washington University (GWU). If an intern did not choose the
option to earn the degree, that intern would still be obligated to
serve the three-year ADSC. However, it is not true that the AFIP ADSC
is not and has never been contingent on graduate-level coursework.
There is no mention that entering AFIP with a graduate degree would
disqualify an intern from participating in the coursework and having
the option to earn the degree. The vast majority, if not all, of the
“USAF developmental education programs,” including AFIP, require
graduate-level coursework and offer a degree. It is not a “given”
that the AFIP ADSC is not and has never been contingent on the GWU
coursework and degree. In fact, the opposite is true. Until the
March 2003 e-mail and long after the AFIP nomination, application and
acceptance process was complete in December 2002 and the AFSC AF Form
63 was signed in January 2003, the GWU coursework was a required
component of AFIP, the GWU degree was an optional component and both
were integral to the ADSC incurred by interns. The coursework and
degree are not available to her and the other interns who entered AFIP
with a graduate degree; thus, the basis of the ADSC waiver is valid.
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit
D.
_________________________________________________________________
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. After a thorough review of the
applicant’s submission, we are unpersuaded that her three-year ADSCD
should be waived. Her contentions are duly noted. Although the
applicant believes the AFIP policy changes concerning the criteria for
selection for the Advanced Academic Degree Program (AADP) is unfair,
we disagree. We note that the AFIP ADSC is not contingent on a
graduate degree and that the three-year ADSC is consistent with all
Air Force developmental programs. Inasmuch as the applicant’s AFIP
ADSC was established in accordance with Air Force policy and she has
not been treated any differently than similarly situated individuals,
she has not been the victim of an error or injustice. In view of the
above and absent sufficient evidence to the contrary, we find no
compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this
application.
4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been
shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will
materially add to our understanding of the issue(s) involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.
_________________________________________________________________
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 [Board considered Docket Number BC-
2003-02221 in Executive Session] considered this application in
Executive Session on 17 December 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. David C. Van Gasbeck, Panel Chair
Mr. E. David Hoard, Member
Ms. Jean A. Reynolds, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with
AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-02221.
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 25 Jun 03, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPAPE, dated 20 Oct 03.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 31 Oct 03.
Exhibit D. Letter from Applicant, dated 20 Nov 03, w/atchs.
DAVID C. VAN GASBECK
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY1998 | BC-1996-00309
Calculating the AFIT commitment based on 15 months placed his last day of commitment before the ending date of the VSI program, thus qualifying him for the VSI. DPPRP indicated that if the applicant believes that non-academic days should not be factored into the ADSC computation, then they suggest that non-duty time should not be counted in calculating the discharge of the ADSC and leave and weekends should be deducted from the service credit since completion of AFIT (see Exhibit C). He...
Calculating the AFIT commitment based on 15 months placed his last day of commitment before the ending date of the VSI program, thus qualifying him for the VSI. DPPRP indicated that if the applicant believes that non-academic days should not be factored into the ADSC computation, then they suggest that non-duty time should not be counted in calculating the discharge of the ADSC and leave and weekends should be deducted from the service credit since completion of AFIT (see Exhibit C). He...
Applicant’s complete statement and documentary evidence submitted in support of his application are included as Exhibit A. seven-year ADSC. Applicant was not contracted to attend UPT until well after the 15 June 1988 change to the eight-year ADSC (Exhibit C with Attachments 1 and 2).
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02418
In support of her request, applicant provided Reports of Individual (RIP) and orders to and from PME assignments, ADSC contract, emails, and “corrected” ADSC. The applicant subsequently received a 2 May 06 RIP that updated her ADSC to 7 Jun 08 to reflect a three-year ADSC for in-residence PME. Although we recognize that the applicant could have been aware that PME normally carries a three-year ADSC, the official RIPs and PCS orders she received and acknowledged uniformly listed an ADSC for...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2001-00295
The applicant’s rebuttal, with attachments, is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, General Law Division, HQ USAF/JAG, noted that Section 2005 provides for recoupment if a member fails to complete the ADSC voluntarily or due to misconduct. On 14 Aug 01, DFAS-POCC/DE advised the applicant that, based on her placement on the TDRL, it was inappropriate at this time to recoup monies which might not be owed if...
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03589
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant’s daughter, in a letter dated 19 August 2003, informed this office the applicant died on 26 January 2003. At the time the servicemember was eligible to elect coverage there was no requirement, either by policy or statute to notify a spouse if the servicemember made no election for coverage. ...
While the applicant has provided evidence of his motion sickness during UFT, he was allowed to continue with his training. No error was committed in allowing the applicant to complete UPT, and his resulting ADSC should be completed unless he is released by proper authority for other reasons. The Air Force would receive nearly four years of duty from the date of his graduation from UNT.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02485
There is no evidence of an Air Force error or injustice, nor is there any basis in law to grant relief. In some states you are automatically divorced after such a length of time. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are unpersuaded that he should be allowed to terminate spouse coverage under the SBP.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03886
A complete copy of the HQ USAF/DPPCC evaluation is at Exhibit B. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit C). While we find the applicant’s situation to be unfortunate, in the absence of sufficient evidence that his current BAH rate is erroneous, 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.