RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02866 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His Active Duty Service Date (ADSC) be changed from 7 Jun 16 to 
9 Dec 13. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

His ADSC for Undergraduate Remote Pilot Aircraft (RPA) training 
be based on his AF Form 63, Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) 
Acknowledgment Statement, dated 25 Jun 10. 

 

He acknowledges the Personnel Services Delivery Memorandum (PSDM) 
announcement calling for applications for training stated 
individuals would incur a six-year ADSC upon completion of the 
training. However, upon notification that he had been selected 
for the training, he was informed and counseled the training 
incurred a 36-month ADSC, which is contrary to the PSDM. 

 

He accepted the training by signing training Reports of 
Individual Personnel (RIPs) that reflected a 36-month ADSC and 
subsequently signed an AF Form 63 with a three-year ADSC. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of his 
training allocation RIPs. 

 

The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, 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 letter 
prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSIP recommends denial, stating, in part, the ADSC in 
effect for the Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) has always been 
six years. Therefore, the applicant’s ADSC was correctly 
adjusted to reflect the six-year commitment following the 
discovery via an ADSC audit. 


 

The applicant was selected by the 16 Dec 09 USAF UAS Beta Test 
Group Nomination Panel. Accordingly, local Military Personnel 
Section (MPS) staffs were charged with counseling selected 
officers on the six-year ADSC associated with the successful 
completion of the UAS program. With that, he completed Initial 
Flight Training, 21 Jan – 24 Feb 10; Initial Qualification and 
Requalification Training (MQIIQR), 20 Sep – 10 Dec 10; UAS 
Instrument Qualification Training (UP3AA), 5 Apr – 8 Jun 10; and 
UAS Fundamental Course (UP4AA), 9 Jun – 9 Jul 10. 

 

In order to apply, he had to follow the instructions outlined in 
the Air Force message which clearly indicated a six-year 
commitment following the award of the RPA rating. To that end, 
AFPC recognizes he should have been provided an additional AF 
Form 63, Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) Acknowledgement 
Statement, upon completion of the UP3AA course to further confirm 
acknowledgement of the six-year commitment. 

 

The applicant highlights guidance in AFI 36-2107, Active Duty 
Service Commitments (ADSC), as justification for establishing a 
three-year vice six-year ADSC. The ADSC for this program was not 
yet listed in AFI 36-2107 based upon its recent establishment. 
However, the ADSC policy for the UP3AA course as published in the 
8106 message and selection letter is and always has been six 
years. Therefore, his ADSC following successful completion of 
the UAS Program (UP3AA) expires 7 Jun 16. 

 

AFPC acknowledges that he signed the AF Form 63 for the UP4AA 
course on 25 Jun 10, reflecting a three-year commitment, and that 
he did not sign a subsequent AF Form 63 following completion of 
the UP3AA course. However, the fact that he did not sign another 
AF Form 63 does not relieve him of the associated commitment. 
The purpose of the Training Allocation Notification RIP and AF 
Form 63 is to document acknowledgement of the ADSC; the RIP and 
form are not the ADSC authorizing authority. The ADSC authority 
was published via the 8106 message and selection letter, both of 
which he was made aware. Therefore, his ADSC following 
successful completion of the UAS Program (UP3AA) is correctly 
annotated as 6 years and will expire on 7 Jun 16. 

 

AFPC routinely audits active duty records to identify potential 
errors and takes appropriate action to correct them. The audit 
performed revealed that the applicant did not have a signed AF 
Form 63 on file; he was notified of the error, and the Military 
Personnel Data System (MilPDS) was correctly updated, and an AF 
Form 63 was sent to him for acknowledgment. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

 

 

 

 


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

It is a grievous act for AFPC to change his commitment almost two 
years after he completed the training. He was never counseled, 
nor did he agree to a six-year ADSC. 

 

AFPC acknowledges that he signed a RIP that did not reflect a 
six-year ADSC. If the ADSC he incurred for his training was six 
years then he accepted to enter training under inaccurate 
information. 

 

He viewed the RIPs he signed as contracts, and considered any 
written and verbal communication he received prior to signing 
them as null and void. It was his understanding the signed RIPs 
was the acknowledgement that he agreed to enter the training he 
was selected for. 

 

His ADSC should be changed back to 3 years due to the fact he was 
never formally notified of a six-year training commitment. He 
was counseled by his squadron commander that he would incur a 
three-year ADSC upon successfully completion of the program. The 
AFPC memorandum dated 16 Dec 09 was not forwarded to him by the 
MPS, his leadership, or AFPC either in written or verbal form. 
If, in fact, the MPS was supposed to counsel officers selected 
for the RPA Pilot BETA Test Program, then they failed to 
accomplish this tasking. 

 

AFPC is conveniently rewriting history to cover multiple errors 
on their part which impacts over 40 graduates of this program. 
They are holding him and other Beta graduates in 2009 and 
2010 accountable to an ADSC in AFI 36-2107, which was written in 
Apr 12. The previous version of the AFI did not account for the 
RPA Pilot ADSC. 

 

AFPC asserts the 8106 “application” message soliciting volunteers 
for Unmanned Aircraft Systems Beta Test Program, is the ADSC 
authority for the RPA Pilot Beta Test Program. In fact, it is 
simply a message notifying qualified individuals of an 
opportunity to apply for the program. To assert that this 
solicitation should serve as binding authority over an ADSC over 
any written and signed documentation is simply egregious. AFPC 
is selectively applying part of the message to apply to his case. 
This message does not specify a specific course. 

 

AFPC’s advisory opinion states that he did not sign an AF Form 
63 for UP3AA – UAS Instrument Qualification Course. He did sign 
an AF Form 63 for this training in the Spring of 2010, despite 
the fact that the RIP only indicated that he would incur an ADSC 
of “0” months for completing the course. However, he was 
informed by the Joint Base San Antonio MPS that the three-year 
ADSC for the UP4AA – UAS Fundamentals Course was rolled into the 
UP3AA – UAS Instrument Qualification Course. Unfortunately this 
document (AF Form 63 for the UP3AA course) has been removed from 
his personnel records, and he is unable to provide a copy to the 
Board. The AF Form 63 he signed on 25 Jun 10 reflecting a three-
year commitment is for MQIIQR –MQ-1 Initial Qualification 


Training, not UP4AA – UAS Fundamentals Course as stated in AFPC’s 
advisory opinion. 

 

He has provided documentation from two RPA Beta Test Program 
graduates that reflect a three-year ADSC for the UP3AA Course. 

 

He understands and acknowledges that administrative mistakes are 
common in establishing a new training program; however, for it to 
take two years to correct this error is absolutely abhorrent. He 
has been working under a set of expectations that were clearly 
defined to him through his RIPs and counseling by his MPS. To 
change the game this late in the process is both inconceivable 
and unjust. 

 

The applicant's complete 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 warranting 
corrective action. After a careful review of the available 
evidence of record and the documentation submitted in the 
applicant’s behalf, the Board majority is inclined to grant 
relief. DPSIP indicates the current governing directive did not 
reflect the ADSC for completion of the UP3AA course and the ADSC 
is and has always been six years; nonetheless, it appears the 
applicant signed the AF Form 63 as instructed, in good faith, 
acknowledging the three-year commitment. As such, the Board 
majority finds it reasonable to believe the applicant would 
understand that his commitment was only for three years. 
Further, the Board majority notes that errors similar to this one 
do occur from time to time; however, they find the timeframe it 
took to remedy this error constitutes an injustice to the 
applicant. In view of the above, the Board majority finds the 
applicant has met his burden of proof that he has suffered from 
an error or an injustice, and that the requested relief should be 
granted. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Board 
majority recommends the six-year ADSC of 7 Jun 16 be removed from 
his record. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: 

 

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force 
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that he incurred a 
three-year Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) of 9 Dec 13, 
rather than a six-year ADSC of 7 Jun 16, for completion of the 


Unmanned Aircraft System Instrument Qualification Training 
course. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2012-02866 in Executive Session on 9 Apr 13, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

, Panel Chair 

, Member 

, Member 

 

By a majority vote, the Board recommended approval of the 
application. voted to deny the applicant’s request 
and elected not to submit a minority report. The following 
documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 29 Jun 12, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSIP, dated 20 Jul 12, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Aug 12. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 4 Sep 12, w/atchs. 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair