AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 

 

 
 

DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-00385 
COUNSEL: NONE 
HEARING DESIRED:  YES 

IN THE MATTER OF:   
      
 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:  
 
His Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) be corrected to 6 April 
2013.   
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
He signed a contract to extend his ADSC to 28 May 2013 in good 
faith in accordance with Air Force instructions in the Air Force 
Graduate Medical Education office.  That date minus 60 days, plus 
24 days of credit that he had not received from his active duty 
time  after  graduating  from  the  United  States  Air  Force  Academy 
(USAFA)  and  prior  to  his  time  in  a  general  surgery  internship, 
equates to an ADSC of 6 April 2013.  This contract was reasonable 
and  he  relied  upon  it  for  career  and  life  decisions.    The  Air 
Force has subsequently changed his ADSC to 6 April 2014.   
 
In  support  of  his  appeal,  the  applicant  provides  a  personal 
statement,  training  selection  letter,  original  ADSC  contract, 
Statement of Service, assignment orders, notice of ADSC change, 
and service information.   
 
The  applicant’s  complete  submission,  with  attachments,  is  at 
Exhibit A. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
 
The  applicant  is  currently  serving  in  the  Regular  Air  Force  in 
the  grade  of  lieutenant  colonel  (O-5).    He  attended  the  USAFA 
from 1990 to 1994 for which he incurred a five-year ADSC.  He was 
sponsored through the Armed Forces Health Professions Scholarship 
Program  (AFHPSP)  from  1994  to  1998  for  which  he  incurred  an 
additional  four  years  of  ADSC,  resulting  in  a  total  nine-year 
ADSC.   
 
The  remaining  relevant  facts,  extracted  from  the  applicant’s 
military  service  records  are  contained  in  the  advisory  opinion 
from the Air Force office of primary responsibility at Exhibit C.   
 
_________________________________________________________________ 

 

 
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
AFPC/DPAME  recommends  denial.    DPSIP  states  the  applicant 
requested their office re-look at his USAFA ADSC to determine if 
he should have received 60 days credit upon graduating from the 
USAFA  and  entering  into  the  AFHPSP  in  1998.    Their  office 
conducted  an  audit  and  found  his  60  days  from  USAFA  was  not 
credited.  He should have received 60 days credit from graduating 
from  the  USAFA  and  entering  into  the  AFHPSP,  resulting  in  an 
eight year and ten month ADSC.  However, the audit also revealed 
a 12-month error when calculating his ADSC for civilian sponsored 
residency  training  in  Dermatology  in  2001.    The  applicant  was 
notified of the audit results on 1 November 2011.   
 
DPAME  indicates  that  every  year,  their  office  calculates 
approximately  700  initial  ADSCs.    Automating  ADSCs  calculations 
has  resulted  in  unacceptable  discrepancies  in  that,  automated 
ADSCs are calculated based on the dates of contracts signed and 
are  not  adjusted  based  on  individual  circumstances.    The  ADSC 
statement  signed  by  the  applicant  on  18  January  2000,  clearly 
states  that  an  ADSC  may  be  recalculated  based  on  changes  in 
assignment,  completion  date(s),  or  an  error  in  the  original 
computation.  Their office acknowledges an error occurred in the 
ADSC  computation  on  5  January  2001.    However,  the  applicant 
signed an ADSC statement on 18 January 2000 which contained this 
incorrect ADSC and did not disclose this error by notifying their 
office,  an  action  taken  by  other  officers  who  identify  an  ADSC 
discrepancy.  The applicant was aware he had an educational ADSC 
of approximately nine years.  His correct ADSC is 6 April 2014.   
 
The complete DPAME evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
Since January 2001, every official piece of paper has reflected 
the same date of 28 May 2013 as his ADSC.  He had no reason to 
believe this was incorrect.  He cannot emphasize the importance 
of the fact that this date has been the basis of every personal, 
professional, and family plan he has made since that date.  He is 
honored to have served and continues to serve in the Air Force 
and  has  done  his  due  diligence  to  fulfill  his  contract  with 
specifics mentioned in the original memorandum.  He realizes that 
his education, funded by the Air Force, incurs an ADSC.  However, 
he  has  made  decisions  for  over  11  years  based  on  his  signed 
contract  date  of  2013,  a  contract  created  by  AFPC/DPAME  in 
January 2001 per Air Force Instruction 36-2107.  He entered the 
contract in good faith and had no reason to doubt its accuracy.  
He sincerely feels that legally, based on detrimental reliance, 
and  from  a  justice  perspective,  that  the  accurate  date  of  his 
ADSC should be 6 April 2013.   

 

2

 
The applicant’s complete rebuttal 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 timely filed. 
 
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;  however,  we  agree  with  the  opinion  and 
recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility 
and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the 
applicant  has  not  been  the  victim  of  an  error  or  injustice.  
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no 
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 issues 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  considered  AFBCMR  Docket 
Number BC-2012-00385 in Executive Session on 9 August 2012, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 
 

 
 
 
 

  Panel Chair 
  Member 
  Member 

 

3

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 10 Feb 12, w/atchs. 
Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPAME, dated 19 Mar 12, w/atchs.  
Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 May 12. 
Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, not dated. 

The  following  documentary  evidence  was  considered  in  connection 
with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-00385: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

  
Panel Chair 

  

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

4