RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2009-00699
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) be changed from 14 July 10 to 14 Jul 09.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
On 13 May 08, he signed an assignment Report on Individual Person (RIP) which reflected he had a 12 month ADSC.
In support of his appeal, applicant submitted copies of documents extracted from his military personnel records.
The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of colonel.
On 14 Apr 09, the SAF Personnel Council disapproved the applicant's request for an ADSC waiver and retirement application on 1 Oct 09.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AF/DPO recommends denial. DPO reviewed his request and confirmed AFPC correctly calculated and applied the ADSC in accordance with the governing instruction. However, the assignment notification RIP was in error because the ADSC date reflected a one year commitment and not two years as required by the governing Air Force Instruction (AFI).
The AFI clearly specifies that non-completion, or incorrect completion of administrative records, does not absolve a member of the correct ADSC. The AFI states constructive acceptance of the ADSC, whereby the two year CONUS-to-CONUS ADSC remains applicable because the policy clearly states how to determine the ADSC, regardless of any administrative/manifest errors.
AF/DPO confirmed the system of record, the Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS), has accurately reflected the correct ADSC for the applicant since 15 Jul 08, and the ADSC date in the system has not changed. In matters of discrepancies between various documentation sources, the system of record is the superseding authority.
The AF/DPO complete evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states he accepted the assignment with the knowledge that after fulfilling the 12 month ADSC he would be able to retire in October 2009. Also, his accepting the one year assignment will allow him once he retires to move and provide assistance for his mother who has been diagnosed with terminal lung cancer.
The applicant's complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.
2. The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or an injustice. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case. We are not unsympathetic to his situation; however, we agree with the opinion and the recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of proof of the existence 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 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 BC-2009-00699 in Executive Session on 25 Aug 09, under the provisions of AFI 36 2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 19 Feb 09, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Military Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AF/DPO, dated 15 May 09, w/atch.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 May 09.
Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 21 May 09, w/atchs.
Panel Chair
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...
___________________________________________________________________ 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.
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force. 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. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did...
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...
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 | CY2008 | BC 2008 00568
His Permanent Change of Station (PCS) paperwork specifically indicated a PCS ADSC, but no training ADSC. The documentation provided shows he did not have a training ADSC listed at the time of his PCS. 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.
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-05084
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-05084 COUNSEL: HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His active duty service commitment (ADSC) incurred for participation in the Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Beta Test Program (UBTP) be changed from six years to three years. In support of his appeal, the applicant submits a 66-paragragh personal...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-02313
On 17 Oct 09, he was assigned duties in an Air Force office and his OPR for this period proves he fulfilled his service commitment. As of this date, this office has received no response (Exhibit Q). The MRB Legal Advisor states that according to AF/JAA, if an officer is appointed in another competitive category, both the time spent as an enrolled student at the USUHS and time after disenrollment would count toward credit for promotion.
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...