RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-05545
COUNSEL: NONE INDICATED
HEARING DESIRED: NO
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His ten-year Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) for Undergraduate Pilot Training (UPT) be declared void.
His records be corrected to reflect he is eligible to participate in the Air National Guard (ANG) Aviator Continuation Pay (ACP) program for fiscal year 2013 (FY13).
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His records erroneously indicate he incurred a ten-year ADSC upon completion of UPT. As a result, he is ineligible to receive the FY13 ACP. However, there is no supporting documentation or signed contract between parties reflecting the veracity of the alleged UPT related service obligation.
The applicants complete submission is at Exhibit A.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is currently serving in the Air National Guard (ANG) in the grade of captain (0-3).
On 20 Jan 06, a DD Form 1966, Record of Military Processing Armed Forces of the United States, was initiated to accept the applicant for enlistment into a guarantee UPT program.
On 27 Feb 06, the applicant was ordered to active duty for an officer basic military training pre-commissioning course and released from active duty on 17 May 06, upon completion.
On 14 Jun 06, according to the applicants aeronautical orders, he commenced Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training (SUPT).
In accordance with Air Force Reserve Command Instruction (AFRCI) 36-2102, Air Force Reserve Service Commitment Date Program, a 10-year UPT commitment is incurred by all pilot trainees. Furthermore, non-prior service members are not required to sign a contract for training.
On 16 Sep 13, the applicant signed a FY13 Reserve AGR Aviator Continuation Pay (ACP) Agreement, indicating he understood the effective date of the agreement was with a tour service commitment of 18 months.
On 16 Sep 13, the agreement was approved by competent authority authorizing the applicant a payment of $15,000 per year.
According to ARPC/DPAA, based on information from the Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS), the applicant incurred a UPT commitment until 20 Jan 16. As such, an FY 13 ACP could not be approved for payment.
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C.
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
ARPC/DPAA recommends denial. The applicant has a legitimate Undergraduate Pilot Training (UPT) commitment and therefore ineligible for the FY13 ACP program. The applicant contends he never signed a service commitment agreement upon entry to initial pilot training. However, in accordance with AFRCI 36-2102, the applicant incurred a UPT commitment until 20 Jan 16. The FY13 ACP program implementation instructions included a criterion that in order to be eligible for the award of the bonus, the member must have completed their initial Undergraduate Flying Training (UFT) service commitment. The UFT commitment is the commitment incurred by all aviators regardless of crew position and UPT is the commitment incurred specifically by pilots. The applicant did not provide any documentation or evidence showing where his UPT commitment was waived.
A complete copy of the ARPC/DPAA evaluation is at Exhibit C.
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluations was forwarded to the applicant on 8 Sep 14 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (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. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice. We took notice of the applicants 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. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief.
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-2013-05545 in Executive Session on 6 Nov 14, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Panel Chair
Member
Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 22 Nov 13.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPAA, dated 5 Feb 14, w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Sep 14.
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04570
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility, which is attached at Exhibit C. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: ARPC/DPAA recommends granting the applicants request noting a review of her records indicates she met all the qualifying criteria for the ACP (ARP) during the original eligibility period. At the time she submitted her signed FY12 ACP contract, a member of the administrative staff told her...
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.
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 | CY2007 | BC-2007-00380
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: BC-2007-00380 INDEX NUMBER: 100.07 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 11 AUG 2008 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) for Undergraduate Pilot Training (UPT) be changed to an eight-year commitment. It further stated, if the ADSC changed, he would serve...
_________________________________________________________________ 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 | CY2012 | BC-2012-00471
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. 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02191
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: On 1 Oct 10, he became eligible for ACP when he received his initial AGR tour orders. The applicant was initially ordered to extended active duty from 1 Oct 10 to 30 Sep 13. We took notice of the applicants 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03725
However, no eligible RPA pilot will be able to take advantage of this due to the way one year orders are allocated and the delay in the release of the FY11 guidance. In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of his Air National Guard (ANG) FY11 ACP Program Announcement and Implementation Policy, aeronautical order, FY11 ACP Agreement Statement of Understanding (SOU), and other documents in support of his application. ...
Applicant’s complete statement and documentary evidence submitted in support of his application are included as Exhibit A. seven-year ADSC. Applicant was not contracted to attend UPT until well after the 15 June 1988 change to the eight-year ADSC (Exhibit C with Attachments 1 and 2).