RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:			DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2014-03048
		
							COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His active duty service commitment (ADSC) of 6 May 20 be changed to 22 May 17.  


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was counseled that he would only incur a three-year ADSC for his Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT) advanced degree, which he completed on 7 May 14.  He would not have accepted and completed the program had he been told his ADSC would be three times the length of the training.  At the time, he signed an AF Form 63, Active Duty Service Commitment Acknowledgment Statement, accepting the 3-year ADSC.  However, the original form was lost in the AFPC records system and in Jan 14, after having completed most of the program, AFPC contacted him about filling out a new AF Form 63.  On 7 Jan 14, he signed the new AF Form 63, which he thought was just a replacement for the lost AF Form 63, and which did not show the ADSC date.  The replacement AF Form 63 unjustly changed his ADSC from 22 May 17 to 6 May 20 after the fact. 

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force after receiving his commission from the United States Air Force Academy on 23 May 12, establishing an ADSC of 22 May 17.

On 7 Jan 14, the applicant signed an AF Form 63, acknowledging he would incur an ADSC of “3 times the length of training” in exchange for obtaining his advanced degree through AFIT.

On 7 May 14, the applicant completed the Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science (MEMS) Graduate Program at Rice University through the AFIT Civilian Institute (CI) Program, establishing an ADSC of 6 May 20.  
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is included at Exhibit C.


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSIPV recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice.  The applicant applied for and received a merit scholarship to earn his Mechanical Engineering and Nano Engineering master’s degree in-residence at Rice University after graduating from USAFA.  AFI 36-2107, Active Duty Service Commitments (ADSC), Table 1.2, Rule 20, requires Airmen to incur an ADSC of three times the length of the event for corporate, foundation, or education institution sponsored fellowships, scholarships, or grants.  On 12 Aug 13, AFPC sent him an audit notice indicating that he had incurred a three times the length of training ADSC for completion of this scholarship program and that no record of his acknowledgement was on file in the Military Personnel Date System (MilPDS) at AFPC.  There is also no record on file showing AFPC notified him of the incorrect three-year ADSC.  On 20 Nov 13, the applicant acknowledged the commitment and signed the AF Form 63, agreeing to serve three times the length of his training.  As a result, his record was corrected to reflect an ADSC through 6 May 20.  
 
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIPV evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

He initially signed an AF Form 63 which reflected the three-year concurrent ADSC he was counseled he would receive, and thought he was only signing a replacement AF Form 63 when he resigned on 7 May 14.  His situation has “considerable precedence.”  Many USAFA graduates who completed advanced degrees found themselves in the same situation he is in, and were able to correct their records.  One of the other USAFA graduates e-mailed the Chief, Verification Section, AFPC, who confirmed “You are correct, you will incur a three-year ADSC for the program.  The ADSC begins upon completion of the ADSC-incurring event.” Finally, he provides two examples of individuals who applied to the AFBCMR and had their records corrected to reflect three-year ADSCs, one of whom attended Rice University with him (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, to include his rebuttal response to the advisory opinion, in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of AFPC/DPSIPV and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice.  While the Board notes the applicant’s contention he was counseled that he would only incur a three-year ADSC for his two-year in-resident master’s degree program, in accordance with AFI 36-2107, he was required to obtain a six-year ADSC for the program he attended.  In addition, on 7 Jan 14 the applicant signed an AF Form 63 which clearly stated his proper ADSC for his degree was three times the length of training.  Further, he cites two examples of his peers who had their ADSCs reduced to three years after applying to the AFBCMR; however, in each of the cited cases, the members’ official files contained signed AF Form 63s as indisputable proof they had been given the incorrect ADSC.  The applicant did not have any such incorrect documentation in his file and while he claims that he is similarly situated to the other applicant’s he has presented no direct evidence that he was somehow misled into believing that the commitment required for the AFIT program he was able to attend was only three years, instead of three times the length of the program.  Therefore, the applicant’s situation is not the same as the individuals he cited.  The Board does not typically grant relief in cases where an error is not clearly documented, and we do not believe it is an injustice to require an Air Force member to serve the full ADSC required for the substantial investment the Air Force has made in them.  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-2014-03048 in Executive Session on 14 May 15 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-03048 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 22 Jul 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSIPV, dated 24 Dec 14, w/atch.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Feb 15.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 25 Feb 15, w/atchs.