RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-00568
INDEX CODE: 113.04
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED
________________________________________________________________
_
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His 3-year Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) incurred for
Predator Basic Course (Advanced Flying Training) be removed.
________________________________________________________________
_
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was not aware of an ADSC in conjunction with his advanced
flying training. He never agreed to an ADSC extension for his
training, nor was he given an opportunity to decline the
assignment that would ultimately extend his commitment. He did
not sign an AF Form 63, Officer/Airman Active Duty Service
Commitment (ADSC) Acknowledgment Statement or any other form of
notification.
His Permanent Change of Station (PCS) paperwork specifically
indicated a PCS ADSC, but no training ADSC. His PCS paperwork
takes precedence over AFI 36-2107, Active Duty Service
Commitments, Paragraph 1.3.1., which states Failure to complete
an AF Form 63 (or other prescribed documentation) does not
relieve the member of the ADSC. Flying training specifically
calls for paperwork other than an AF Form 63.
The documentation provided shows he did not have a training ADSC
listed at the time of his PCS. His PCS to a Unmanned Aerial
Vehicle (UAV) assignment is a 3-year controlled tour, and should
not be confused with an ADSC extension.
In support of his request, the applicant provided a personal
statement, his reassignment Report on Individual Personnel
(RIP), a change of projected assignment sheet, and his PCS
order.
The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
_
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant attended and graduated from the Predator Basic
course PREDPSOBC on or about 14 Apr 06. Records indicate he
did not sign an AF Form 63, prior to departing for training.
His PCS orders show no ADSC listed at the time of his PCS move.
According to his Notification of Selection for Reassignment RIP
he incurred a 24-month ADSC for his PSC assignment and no ADSC
for his training.
The lack of the ADSC documentation on his reassignment RIP was
due to the fact the members advanced flying training course was
not loaded into the military training database prior to his
departure for training.
________________________________________________________________
_
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPS recommends denial of the applicants request to
remove the three-year ADSC for the Predator Basic course. DPS
states he may request a waiver of his ADSC in conjunction with
separation in accordance with AFI 36-3207 or as an exception to
policy, if he wishes to separate from the Air Force prior to
completing the ADSC.
DPS states that the lack of ADSC documentation was due to the
fact that the members advanced flying training course was not
loaded into the military training database. A formal training
course quota is how the ADSC office (HQ AFPC/DPSOTES) is
notified to generate and forward an AF Form 63 to the member.
Since this action did not take place, the member was allowed to
depart PCS without any ADSC listed for the training.
DPS states AFPC/DPSOTES was contacted by the Predator functional
area manger (FAM) with a list of over 100 members that did not
have their ADSCs updated for the Predator Basic course. All
affected members have had their advanced flying training ADSCs
retroactively updated.
The complete DPS evaluation is at Exhibit B.
________________________________________________________________
_
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
His desire to correct his records is in no way a means for him
to separate from the Air Force now, or in the immediate future.
He states the Air Force personnel system failed him and his
fellow aviators. The Air Force admits to the error concerning
the failure of AFPC to inform over 100 airmen of an ADSC
associated with the Predator training. However, citing the AFI
governing training ADSCs does not shift the responsibility to
the member and alleviate AFPCs duty to get the paperwork right.
The regulation specifically states the absence of an AF Form 63
does not relieve the member from the associated ADSC. While
this statute holds true, it does not apply in his case. An AF
Form 63, was completed, signed, and returned. AFPCs problem is
that the AF Form 63 did not include the ADSC; in fact, it
specifically states that there would be no ADSC for training.
Failure to complete the AF Form 63, is not the same as
completing the AF Form 63, and having AFPC change the contract a
year later. Someone at AFPC considered a pilot shortage in the
Predator community, so the personnel function plugged a hole in
the dam for 6-9 months, by denying these Airmen the opportunity
to exercise the choice they have earned.
The applicants complete response 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. 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 (OPR) and
adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the
applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.
While the applicant presented evidence that his PCS assignment
paperwork did not list an ADSC for the advanced flying training,
we note AFI 36-2107, as cited by the OPR, clearly states that a
failure to document an ADSC does not relieve the member of an
ADSC. Additionally, the applicant has an administrative avenue
for relief by requesting a waiver of the ADSC if he desires to
separate. 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 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 Docket Number
BC-2008-00568 in Executive Session on 14 January 2009, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, Panel Chair
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, Member
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, Member
The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number
BC-2008-00568 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 25 Jan 08, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPS, dated 1 Aug 08.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 Aug 08.
Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 14 Sep 08.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Panel Chair
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.
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...
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 | CY2013 | BC 2012 03929
He was notified of his selection for the BETA III RPA training, and was informed and counseled based on his training allocation notification Reports of Individual Personnel (RIPs), that this training incurred a 36-month ADSC. He accepted the training by signing the training allocation RIPs that reflected a 36-month ADSC and subsequently signed an AF Form 63, Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) Acknowledgement Statement with a three-year ADSC. 2) When he signed his RIPs he was counseled...
In support of his contention, the applicant submits a copy of an AF Form 63, Officer Airman Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) Counseling Statement, purported counter signed by a Military Personnel Flight official on 16 December 1996 indicating that he incurred an ADSC of 14 June 1998 as a result of Advanced Flying Training. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 02866
He accepted the training by signing training Reports of Individual Personnel (RIPs) that reflected a 36-month ADSC and subsequently signed an AF Form 63 with a three-year ADSC. He has provided documentation from two RPA Beta Test Program graduates that reflect a three-year ADSC for the UP3AA Course. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-01807
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-01807 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) be changed from 72 months to 36 months. He received a training Report on Individual Personnel (RIP) and AF Form 63, Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) Acknowledgement Statement, which he agreed to and...
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;...