RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-01074 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

___________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) be changed to remove the 
last 36 months ADSC. 

 

___________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He was not informed prior to entering into his requalification 
training that he would incur an ADSC. Approximately one week after 
the training started he was informed there would be an additional 
36 months service commitment. It was both unfair and unjust to be 
misled into accepting a training requirement that benefits the Air 
Force without being informed of the personal cost of extended 
service. Both his Notification of Selection for Reassignment and 
his Request and Authorization for Permanent Change of Station (PCS) 
order reflect a “zero” ADSC for training. The proper notification 
and counseling should have been provided prior to his training 
beginning, not after. He cites the governing AFI, requesting the 
Board to acknowledge this ADSC was unjustly incurred and correct 
his records to reflect the original training ADSC as agreed to on 
the Notification of Selection for Reassignment and his PSC order. 

 

He entered into requalification training on 4 Aug 09 and was 
notified by e-mail on 12 Aug 09 that he acquired a 36 month ADSC 
for this training. On 11 Sep 09, he completed the training course 
and on 30 Sep 09, he began asking how he could resolve the ADSC 
issue. He contacted the Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC) only to 
be told he had to submit a request in the “Ask a Question” section 
of their website. He submitted a request through the AFPC website; 
however, he did not hear back from them until 16 Oct 09 when he 
received an e-mail response from AFPC/DPSTO that is summarized as 
follows: 

 

 a. DPSTO acknowledged he had not been sent the ADSC prior to his 
training which is in direct violation of AFI 36-2107, para 2.6.6. 

 

 

 

 

 

 b. DPSTO states “But again failure to obtain formal 
acknowledgement, whether due to administrative oversight or other 
actions, does not negate the ADSC if the ADSC-incurring event has 


been entered into.” This statement is inconsistent with AFI 36-
2107, para 2.6.6, and leaves one to wonder if the program is being 
administered IAW the governing instruction. 

 

 c. DPSTO is also concerned about his possible knowledge of any 
ADSC associated with this training; he assures the Board he did not 
know of any ADSC associated with the requalification training. He 
illustrates his point by stating that during his initial upgrade to 
the surveillance officer position, he was not given an ADSC and 
therefore, based on past experience, had no reason to believe there 
was an ADSC associated with requalification training. 

 

 d. Furthermore, DPSTO is concerned about previous ADSC’s received 
during his career, he had two others; both ADSC’s for training were 
received well in advance of the training start date which provided 
him time to make an informed decision prior to accepting the 
training. 

 

He believes had he been properly informed of the additional 
36 month ADSC, he would have exercised other options to prevent 
incurring another ADSC. One thing he would have done differently 
was to ensure his losing and gaining commanders were made aware of 
the training requirement in order to keep his qualification from 
lapsing which would have prevented the need for him to attend 
formal requalification training. Additionally, he would have 
sought an upgrade qualification as an alternative, which currently 
does not come with an ADSC. Lastly, he could have extended his 
tour overseas since his losing commander offered that option which 
would have given him even more time to consider other options. 
Bottom line is that the Air Force failed to notify him of the 
training ADSC which prevented him from responding appropriately. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides a copy of his 
entire communications and documentation regarding the ADSC issue. 

 

His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. 

 

___________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant is currently on active duty serving in the grade of 
captain (0-3E). 

 

Additional relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate office of the 
Air Force. Accordingly, there is no need to recite these facts in 
this Record of Proceedings. 

 

___________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 


 

AFPC/DPTO recommends denial. DPTO acknowledges the Air Force did 
not due diligence IAW the governing AFI. However, DPTO states the 
applicant attended several other training courses in his career, 
and has constructive knowledge of the requirement and subsequent 
addition ADSC associated with that particular training course. In 
addition, the applicant was a non-select for promotion on the last 
promotion board list and is eligible for retirement. If he is a 
non-select on the next promotion board he will have a mandatory 
retirement date of 1 Sep 11; making the ADSC in question 
irrelevant. 

 

The DPTO complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit B. 

 

___________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The applicant responds by stating he disagrees with DPTO’s comment 
that he had constructive knowledge of the requirement. In the 
past, he attended two courses that had an associated ADSC; 
however, he had plenty of time to make an informed decision. He 
refutes the statement that “…subsequent addition to his personnel 
record of appropriate ADSC associated with a training event.” The 
ADSC change to his records was unjust because he was unaware that 
his records were being changed. He restates his original 
contentions that he was not informed of the ADSC associated with 
this training before entering into the training. 

 

The applicant’s complete submission 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. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate 
the existence of error or injustice. In this respect, we note the 
opinion of the Air Force office of primary responsibility; 
however, we disagree. We also note the Air Force office of 
primary responsibility agrees with the applicant’s assertion that 
he was not adequately briefed prior to the start of the training. 
As a result, he could not make an informed decision. After 
reviewing the evidence provided by the applicant, to include his 
PCS order that reflects “zero” training ADSC, we are persuaded he 
attended the training course in good faith without incurring an 
additional ADSC. Consequently, we agree that the Air Force did 


not due diligence with respect to counseling the applicant on the 
36 month ADSC associated with the requalification training course. 
Therefore, we recommend that the records be corrected as indicated 
below. 

 

___________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: 

 

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force 
relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that his 36-month 
Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) he incurred for completion 
of Advance Flying Training E-8 Surveillance Officer 
Requalification Training course be declared void. 

 

___________________________________________________________________ 

 

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number 
BC-2010-01074 in Executive Session on 16 Dec 10, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

, Panel Chair 

, Member 

, Member 

 

All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The 
following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 28 Feb 10, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPTO, dated 29 Apr 10. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Jun 10. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 22 Jun10. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair