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. 

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

In 2008, he received information through his chain of command 
that the Air Force was seeking volunteers for Unmanned Aircraft 
System (UAS) Beta Test Program (UBTP).  In February 2009, he 
completed and submitted his application to volunteer for the 
program.  He received a training allocation Report on Individual 
Person (RIP) notifying him of his selection to attend the UAS 
Instrument Qualification course.  The RIP was accompanied by an 
AF Form 63, stating that he would incur a 3 year Active Duty 
Service Commitment (ADSC), which he signed on 24 June 2009.  The 
instructions also confirmed that he would incur a 36-month ADSC.

On 17 July 2009, he received another Training Allocation RIP 
informing him of his selection to attend the UAS Fundamentals 
Course.  The RIP did not state an ADSC would be incurred for the 
course, but directed him to see the Education and Training 
Course Announcement (ETCA) for full reporting instructions.  
Those instructions stated a 36-month ADSC would be incurred for 
the training.  He signed the RIP on 27 July 2009 and attended 
the course from 30 October – 2 December 2009.

Over a 16-month period, he received orders and attended six 
separate periods of temporary duty and one permanent change of 
station for five bases.  At no time did he suspect any of these 
commands were erroneous in the processing of his orders.  There 
were several flaws in the actions of AFPC, and the after the 
fact extension of his ADSC is both an error and injustice. 

In support of his appeal, the applicant submits a 66-paragragh 
personal statement, training allocation RIPS, AF Form 63, Active 
Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) Acknowledgement Statement, e-mail 
correspondence and documentation from his master personnel 
records.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is a captain in the Regular Air Force.  The 
remaining relevant facts, extracted from the applicant’s master 
personnel records, are outlined in the letter prepared by the 
Air Force office of responsibility, which is included at 
Exhibit B.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSIP recommends denial.  On 3 October 2008, the Air Force 
Personnel Center Director of Assignments (AFPC/DPA) announced a 
Beta Test Program for the Unmanned Aircraft Systems.  Interested 
officers were informed that they had to meet certain 
requirements for consideration and once selected and upon 
successful completion of the program, they would incur a 6-year 
ADSC.  

The applicant was selected for the USAF Beta Test Group 
Nomination Panel.  He was notified through his Military 
Personnel Section staff.  He entered and completed his training 
classes on 9 April 2010.  As stated in the solicitation message, 
members successfully completing the training would incur the 
6 year ADSC.

AFPC recognizes the officers should have been provided an AF 
Form 63 which specifically indicated the 6-year ADSC requirement 
for this training.  Unfortunately, in the early stages of the 
program, the corresponding support for updating the code in the 
military personnel data system (MILPDS) was not yet available.  
As a result, some base personnel clerks did not provide members 
with accurate AF Form 63’s and in other cases, AF Form 63’s were 
not completed at all.  The lack of accurate forms and the MILPDS 
update capability contributed to processing errors.  As the 
applicant states, many aspects were not finalized from 2008 
through 2010.  Without question, the program evolved, however, 
the commitment length did not.  The applicant challenges the 
ADSC stating neither the general visiting his Squadron Officer’s 
School, nor his aides, briefed him on any specific ADSC.  If the 
general spoke about the program, he would have obtained a 
talking paper as required when senior leaders speak on personnel 
programs; the 8106 message would have been the source of that 
information.

The applicant highlights the training allocation notification 
RIP he received for the training as justification for 
establishing a 3-year vice 6-year ADSC.  However, the ADSC for 
this program was not yet listed in the AFI based upon its recent 
establishment; nor was it input in the MILPDS or posted on the 
Education and Training Course Announcement Website.  At that 
time, the only aspect of the program listed in AFI 36-2107, 
Active Duty Service Commitments (ADSC), dated 22 April 2005, at 
that time applied to advanced flying training and not initial 
skills training which UP3AA is defined as.  It does not speak to 
completion of the UP3AA which is required to earn the RPA 
rating.  The ADSC policy for the UP3AA course as published in 
the 8106 message and selection letter is 6 years.  The Chief’s 
2008 mandate was finally incorporated into the 20 April 2012, 
AFI.  The administrative procedures for processing the AF Form 
63 are listed under Table 1.1, Rule 34.

AFPC acknowledges the applicant signed the AF Form 63 on 23 June 
2009 reflecting a 3 year commitment.  They further acknowledge, 
that he did not sign a Training Allocation Notification RIP 
reflecting the correct ADSC; neither had an ADSC reflected on 
it.  However, prior to him ever him ever receiving the incorrect 
AF Form 63, he had to receive a copy of the solicitation message 
that clearly stated that upon successful conclusion of training, 
he would incur a 6 year ADSC.  The production of AF Form 63, 
RIPs, and ETCA were an administrative oversight.  The ADSC was 
published via 8106 message and selection letter, both of which, 
he was made aware of.  Therefore, his ADSC will expire on 27 
October 2015.

As part of ADSC management, APFC routinely audits active duty 
records to identify potential errors and take appropriate action 
to correct them.  One such audit revealed the applicant 
erroneously signed an AF Form 63 with a 3 year commitment, when 
the correct commitment was 6 years.  As a result, he was 
notified of the error and MILPDS was updated.  

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

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC’s advisory opinion recommends denial based on the fact that 
ADSC in effect for the UAS has always been 6 years.  However, 
the historical records indicate that AFPC changed the required 
ADSC after he participated.  While AFPC argues he was informed 
of the 6-year ADSC via the solicitation message, the message 
does not reveal the commitment would be segmented and assigned 
to different courses.  The solicitation message would have 
needed to describe the three periods of ADSC to describe the 
policy AFPC actually followed in 2009 and 2010.  

He acted in good faith that the material provided by AFPC was 
correct.  He planned his career and his family’s life in 
reliance of the ADSC agreement.  He requests the Board rectify 
this unfair situation by restoring his original ADSC.

The applicant’s completed response, with attachments, 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.  We thoroughly 
considered the applicant’s complete submission and the office of 
primary responsibility’s recommendation not to change the record.  
However, we believe a preponderance of the evidence supports 
corrective action.  The applicant has submitted documentation 
supporting his contention that he signed a contract for a 3-year 
ADSC.  He has also provided substantial evidence supporting this 
was a systemic problem.  As such, we find the applicant was not 
properly counseled regarding the correct term of his commitment.  
Accordingly, we recommend that the applicant’s record be 
corrected as indicated below.

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 pertinent military records of the Department of the Air 
Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that the six-
year Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) he incurred for 
completion of Unmanned Aircraft Systems Undergraduate Remote 
Pilot Aircraft Training be declared void and his ADSC date be 
adjusted to reflect 8 April 2013, rather than 27 October 2015.

________________________________________________________________


The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2012-05084 in Executive Session on 22 August 2013, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

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

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 Oct 12, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B.  Letter, ARPC/DPSIP, dated 21 Nov 12, w/atchs.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Dec 12.
      Exhibit D.  Applicant’s Response, undated.