AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-00471
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
IN THE MATTER OF:
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
1. His 10-year Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) be
permanently changed to reflect an 8-year ADSC with an expiration
date of 26 Jul 09.
2. His Aviator Continuation Pay (ACP) be adjusted to reflect the
two years that he would have been eligible to apply for.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
1. His AF Form 1034, Extended Active Duty Agreement (Officer
Training School (OTS)) United States Air Force Reserve, that he
signed on 23 Aug 99 states that he would incur an 8-year ADSC
upon the award of his aeronautical rating. After the governing
instructions changed the ADSC requirement for pilot training, he
was caught in the middle of an administrative glitch and was
forced to sign the new ADSC document. This error not only made
him ineligible for the FY09 ACP, but it also changed his
eligibility to retire in 20 years. With the 10-year ADSC, he
will be eligible to retire after serving 21 years and 11 months.
2. He is hoping that his request is simple to fix since there
were two other cases that preceded his request that are
practically identical as both officers attended OTS at the same
time he did. With the officer’s permission, he provides the
previous BCMR case names and numbers. He notes that one pilot
from each OTS class was selected to attend Joint Service Unit
Pilot Training (JSUPT) with the Navy while the rest attended Air
Force training. He was the one pilot from his class that
attended JSUP; this is the only thing that separates his case
from the other two officers. He was forced to sign a new 10-year
ADSC upon completion of the first phase of training. He was
“forced” to sign the paperwork because if he did not he would
fall under the declination statement on AF Form 63, Active Duty
Service Commitment (ADSC) Acknowledgement Statement, which would
mean that he would not be allowed to change duty stations and/or
complete his pilot training, and possibly be separated from the
Air Force.
3. He states that AFPC is willing to provide a favorable
recommendation on his behalf to have his records corrected once
directed by the BCMR.
In support of his request, the applicant provides e-mail
communications, and copies of his ADSC and ACP paperwork.
His 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 major (0-4).
On 21 Apr 99, the applicant signed AF Form 56, Application for
Training Leading to a Commission in the United States Air Force.
He also signed the additional comments or explanations section
that reflects a statement, “I HAVE BEEN BRIEFED AND UNDERSTAND
THAT THE ACTIVE DUTY SERVICE COMMITMENT (ADSC) WILL BE 10 YEARS
IF I ENTER UNDERGRADUATE PILOT TRAINING AFTER 01 OCT 99.”
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are
contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the
Air Force, which are at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSIP recommends denial. Although the Air Force policy
changed, which reduced the ADSC for some aviators, it did not
apply to officers who were commissioned through OTS. The
applicant was commissioned through OTS; therefore, this policy
change did not apply to him. Additionally, the ADSC in effect
for UPT at that time was and still is 10 years.
The complete DPSIP evaluation is at Exhibit C.
AFPC/DPAO recommends denial. They note that the applicant’s case
is different than the other cases referred to because he was
already a United States Navy veteran prior to entering OTS. In
this respect, the consequences of ADSCs were not new to him. In
1999, he initially signed a 10-year UPT ADSC during OTS and four
months later, he signed one for eight years. In Nov 00, he
signed AF Form 63 incurring the 10-year ADSC. The applicant has
not provided proof that “shocks the conscience” that shows an
injustice occurred. At the time the applicant entered the Air
Force he was satisfied with the ACP Agreement and accepted it in
good faith. Further, the ACP is a retention tool and not an
entitlement.
The complete DPAO evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D.
2
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant
on 4 May 12 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this
date, this office has received no response.
_________________________________________________________________
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 opinions and recommendations
of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt
their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the
applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.
While we note the applicant’s reference to the previous Board
decisions on similar cases, as noted by the Air Force OPRs, the
circumstances in those cases differ from the applicant. Based on
our review of the evidence of record, it appears the applicant’s
ADSC and ACP entitlements were properly executed. Therefore, we
find no 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-2012-00471 in Executive Session on 30 Aug 12, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Panel Chair
Member
Member
3
The following documentary evidence for Docket Number BC-2012-
00471 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSIP, dated 5 Mar 12.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPAO, dated 24 Apr 12.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 May 12.
Panel Chair
4
_________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Upon being asked to comment on applicant’s request that his ACP agreement be effective as of November 1997, HQ AFPC/DPAR states, in part, that current Air Force policy does not allow pilots to get ADSC “credit” for variable length ACP agreements. He has applied Air Force policy guidance consistently to all pilots with incorrect UPT ADSCs who have requested to be eligible for ACP based on the...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-03348
Even though Air Force policy extended UPT service commitments to ten years, previous Board decisions waived the additional two years when documentation clearly indicated that an injustice occurred. The complete DPAO evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In his earlier appeal, the Board concluded his ADSC should be recorded as eight years rather than ten years. Had the...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-00812
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-00812 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. ________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: In accordance with (IAW) AFI 36-2107, Active Duty Service Commitments, Note 1, The Air Force Academy classes of 1998 and 1999 will incur an ADSC of...
Therefore, he requests that the three years spent in a non-flying assignment be considered as part of his current ADSC as it is for all those who were “banked.” If his ADSC is amended to March 2003, he will have served 11 years in the Air Force, which he feels is commensurate with the training he has received and is a longer TAFMSD than many of the “banked” pilots he graduated with. Applicant’s request is at Exhibit A. They are of the opinion that the time that matters is that time served...
Therefore, he requests that the three years spent in a non-flying assignment be considered as part of his current ADSC as it is for all those who were “banked.” If his ADSC is amended to March 2003, he will have served 11 years in the Air Force, which he feels is commensurate with the training he has received and is a longer TAFMSD than many of the “banked” pilots he graduated with. Many 1992 USAFA graduates did attend pilot training as a first assignment, and were subsequently placed in a...
He provided the correct date to the Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC) but the problem was not fixed until after he signed the contract. If the Board grants the application, the records should be corrected to show an initial UPT ADSC of 31 July 1997. ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Aviation Continuation Pay Program, stated that the purpose of the advisory opinion, dated 14 September 1999, was to offer the applicant the opportunity to enter into an ACP agreement.
Despite this, the applicant claims the MPF stated he had to accept the C-141 training because he had three and one-half years remaining on his UPT ADSC. Despite Block II of the AF Form 63 not being initialed, the applicant signed the AF Form 63 reflecting the correct ADSC and thus accepted the ADSC (Exhibit C with Attachments 1 through 4). In this case, however, the applicant has presented persuasive evidence that he agreed to the C-141 IQT training under the assumption that he would incur...
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...
On 12 March 1998, the applicant was presented an OFFICER/AIRMAN ACTIVE DUTY SERVICE COMMITMENT (ADSC) COUNSELING STATEMENT, AF Form 63, acknowledging that he would incur an eight-year ADSC upon completion of PV4PC (apparently pilot training), but he declined to sign the form. The issue of whether applicant had knowledge of his eight-year commitment becomes muddled because Academy graduates did not sign an AF Form 63 (or any other documentation) specifically setting out the commitment length...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01163
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01163 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The 6-year Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) he incurred for completing Unmanned Aircraft Systems Undergraduate Remote Pilot Aircraft Training course be changed to 3 years. At the time of his training, no documentation was provided acknowledging a 6-year ADSC. THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military...