of 

Air 

Force 

Instruction 

DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-03496 
COUNSEL:  NONE 
HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

 
                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 
 
IN THE MATTER OF: 
 
   
 
   
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
 
His  Active  Duty  Service  Commitment  (ADSC)  date  be  changed  to 
1 August 2009 rather than 3 December 2011. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
His  Permanent  Change  of  Station  (PCS)  move  meets  the 
requirements 
36-2110, 
Assignments,  para  2.51,  making  it  a  low  cost/no  cost  (LCNC) 
move.    Although  AFI  36-2107,  Active  Duty  Service  Commitments, 
lists  a  Continental  United  States  (CONUS)  to  CONUS  PCS  as  an 
ADSC  event,  he  believes  that  since  his  PCS  orders  should  have 
been coded as a LCNC PCS, his ADSC should be adjusted.   
 
He was not properly counseled about his ADSC, because counseling 
should  have  been  documented  on  the  AF  Form  63,  Officer  and 
Airman  Active  Duty  Service  Commitment  (ADSC)  Acknowledgment 
Statement, within seven days of assignment. 
 
In  support  of  his  appeal,  the  applicant  provides  a  copy  of  a 
redacted email correspondence. 
 
The  applicant’s  complete  submission,  with  attachment,  is  at 
Exhibit A. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
 
The  relevant  facts  pertaining  to  this  application,  extracted 
from  the  applicant’s  military  records,  are  contained  in  the 
letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force.   
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
AFPC/DPAPB recommends denial, stating, in part, a change to the 
original PCS code is not warranted.  The applicant has a fully 

(AFI) 

funded  PCS  order  made  consistent  with  normal  PCS  selection 
criteria.    Neither  the  assignment  team  nor  the  ADSC  personnel 
are supporting this request and the member has not articulated a 
specific  reason  explaining  what  benefit  the  Air  Force  would 
receive based on the approval of his request. 
 
Proper  protocol  was  followed  in  the  processing  of  the 
applicant’s  assignment.    The  intent  of  the  “Low-Cost”  PCS 
program covered under AFI 36-2110, para 2.51., is to fill urgent 
requirements  from  local  resources  when  there  is  no  other 
qualified individuals available.  Therefore, it is not standard 
AF  operating  procedures  to  seek  low-cost  volunteers,  unless 
there  are  no  other  available,  qualified  individuals.    In 
addition,  in  order  to  be  considered  for  a  low-cost  PCS,  the 
member  has  to  specifically  ask  for  consideration  and  must 
provide a written statement that he/she will not relocate their 
household if provided a low-cost PCS.  This did not occur in the 
applicant’s  case.    Therefore,  his  request  requires  a  change  in 
his PCS status after his reassignment has consummated.  
 
In addition, the documents submitted in support of the applicant 
clearly indicate that he was aware of the provisions of the Low 
Cost move program; that he intended to request a low cost move; 
but, he did not submit an official request.  Since the applicant 
had indicated his desire for a Low Cost move, it must be assumed 
that  the  assignment  team  chose  not  to  pursue  that  option  and 
that  they  believed  the  assignment  required  someone  who  would 
remain  in  the  position  for  two  or  more  years.    In  this  case, 
there  is  nothing  in  the  documentation  provided  that  indicates 
the applicant contested this choice prior to his arrival at his 
duty station.   
 
The complete AFPC/DPAPB evaluation is at Exhibit C. 
 
AFPC/DPSIP  recommends  denial,  stating,  in  part,  the  applicant 
should incur the 2-year ADSC for the CONUS to CONUS PCS.  Based 
on the governing instructions, service members who PCS CONUS to 
CONUS,  will  incur  an  ADSC  of  two  years;  excluding  low-cost  and 
no-cost  PCS.    In  addition,  failure  to  complete  the  AF  Form  63 
does not relieve the member of the ADSC.  
 
The complete AFPC/DPSIP evaluation is at Exhibit D. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
The applicant indicates that at the time he volunteered for the 
assignment,  his  email  choices  clearly  reflect  his  request  for 
LCNC  consideration.    Thus,  his  PCS  orders  were  inaccurate.    He 
should have been counseled on his ADSC and the counseling should 
have  been  properly  documented  on  an  AF  Form  63.    He  does  not 
believe protocol was properly followed in this case and his move 
clearly met the requirement outlined in DPAPB’s letter for a low 

 

 

cost  no  cost  move.    The  position  he  applied  for  is  a  one  deep 
position  and  was  vacant  for  nearly  18  months.    He  clearly 
indicated  (in  writing)  when  he  sent  his  choices  that  he  would 
not relocate his dependents or household goods, if selected for 
PCS. 
 
When he received his assignment orders because they indicated a 
48-month ADSC, he assumed it was a misprint and referred to the 
tour length rather than the ADSC.   
 
The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit F. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
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,  including  his  rebuttal 
to the Air Force evaluation in judging the merits of the case; 
however, the applicant’s case has undergone an exhaustive review 
by  the  Air  Force  offices  of  primary  responsibility  and  we  did 
not  find  the  evidence  provided,  sufficient  to  overcome  their 
assessment  of  the  case.    Therefore,  in  the  absence  of  evidence 
to  the  contrary,  we  find  no  basis  to  recommend  granting  the 
relief sought in this application. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 
 
The  applicant  be  notified  the  evidence  presented  did  not 
demonstrate  the  existence  of  material  error  or  injustice;  the 
application  was  denied  without  a  personal  appearance;  and  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-2010-03496 in Executive Session on 28 June 2011, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 
 
The  following  documentary  evidence  pertaining  to  AFBCMR  Docket 
Number BC-2010-03496 was considered: 
 
    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 6 Sep 10, w/atchs.  
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 

 

    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPAPB, dated 28 Oct 10. 
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIP, dated 2 Dec 10. 
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Jan 11. 
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 16 Jan 11. 
 
 
 
 
                                   Panel Chair