RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-00018

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His active duty service commitment (ADSC) incurred for advanced flying training (AFT) be changed from 1 May 15 to 14 Jan 14.  

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He unjustly received an ADSC because he was miscounseled by the Military Personnel Flight (MPF) before he accepted the assignment.  He should not be held accountable for incongruities in the regulations or be responsible the miscounseling he received.  As a non-volunteer, he received notification of a permanent change of station (PCS) and subsequent AFT in August 2011, both of which required ADSCs.  He informed his commander he would not accept an ADSC associated with the AFT.  He and his commander read AFI 36-2107, Active Duty Service Commitments (ADSC), and determined the ADSC for the AFT was not required.  The personnel officer of his servicing MPF concurred with their assessment and agreed to generate an AF Form 63, Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) Acknowledgement Statement, reflecting only the 24-month PCS ADSC, but no ADSC for the AFT.  Although he never received a corrected AF Form 63, he received orders which reflected 24 months ADSC for his PCS and 00 months ADSC for AFT.  Based on the information he received from the MPF and his orders showing no ADSC for AFT, he accepted the PCS and AFT.  In November 2012, long after he had arrived at his new assignment, he was informed his AFT required a 36 month ADSC, and it would be retroactively applied.  

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 major (0-4).  
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of primary responsibility which is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSIP recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice.  The Total Force Service Center (TFSC) notified the applicant of the requirement to accept or decline the AFT through his Military Personnel Section (MPS) on 2 Aug 11.  The applicant claims in accordance with AFI 36-2107, Active Duty Service Commitments (ADSC), Table 1.1, Rule 16, note 1b, he does not incur any additional ADSC for AFT in conjunction with his PCS.  Specifically, the AFI indicates all manned or unmanned pilots, navigators, and air battle managers who began aviation service after 30 Sep 97, will not incur any additional advanced AFT/Instructor qualification ADSCs which extend beyond six or ten years, as applicable.  However, the applicant failed to reference note 1c which states rated officers who crossflow/retrain to a different weapons system (basic qualification) or aircraft airframe will incur the full ADSC for that training even if that ADSC extends beyond the officer’s sixth or tenth year of rated service.  In addition, a thorough review of AFI 36-2107 by the applicant would have revealed the waiver authority resided with the Office of the Secretary of the Air Force and in order to decline an ADSC, he needed to have established a date of separation (DOS) under the 7-day option.  Airmen that do not establish a DOS or retirement date under the 7-day option and attend or enter into an ADSC-incurring event are considered to have constructively accepted the ADSC.  There is no evidence the applicant applied to establish a DOS or retirement date under the 7-day option, which implied he accepted the ADSC.  Although the applicant’s assignment notification report on his record of individual personnel (RIP) does not reflect an ADSC for AFT, it should.  The applicant was notified of these discrepancies and chose to ignore the initial and subsequent notifications that his records did not reflect the appropriate ADSC, nor was the AF Form 63 on file in his master personnel records.  As a result, the ADSC for his AFT was updated to reflect the correct date.  

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIP evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reiterates his initial argument that he was miscounseled prior to accepting the assignment.  He submitted a signed memo from his previous commander personally attesting to the fact that both the commander and the outbound personnel section of their MPF advised the applicant that he would not incur an ADSC for the training.  He did not establish a date of separation under the 7-day option because he was not incurring the ADSC; however, he would have done so if he knew he was incurring a 36-month training ADSC.  In addition, he disputes not meeting any suspense to provide further information.  In fact, his “final” notice of retroactively applying for a 36-month ADSC for training was actually his first notice.  He requests an expeditious resolution because he has an ANG/AFR unit waiting to hire him.  

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, 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 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 (OPR) and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice. While we note the applicant’s argument that he was miscounseled, as well as the supporting statement from his commander that appears to support this point, we are not persuaded that corrective action is warranted.  In this respect, we note the comments of the Air Force OPR indicating that the plain language of the governing instruction clearly indicates that rated officers like the applicant who crossflow/retrain to a different weapon system (basic qualification) or aircraft airframe will incur the full ADSC for that training even if that ADSC extends beyond the office’s sixth or tenth year of rated service.  Therefore, given the applicant’s rank and tenure and the extensive research he indicates he conducted on this point prior to accepting the assignment in question, we believe he should have known that he would incur an additional service commitment, regardless of what he may or may not have been told by the outbound assignments clerk.    Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we conclude that no basis exists to grant 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 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-2013-00018 in Executive Session on 22 Oct 13, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	 Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 Dec 12, w/atchs.
	 Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	 Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIP, dated 11 Feb 13.
	 Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 Feb 13.
	 Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 14 Mar 13, w/atchs.




                                   
                                   Chair
                                    







2