RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  01-00408
		INDEX NUMBER:  100.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED: NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His three-year Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) incurred as a result of his completion of Undergraduate Air Battle Manager (ABM) Training be reduced to two years.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The three-year ADSC for ABM training is inaccurate; and that according to Formal Training, his ADSC should have been two years, rather than three.

Applicant’s complete statement and the documentary evidence submitted in support of his application are included as Exhibit A with Attachments 1 through 6.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 10 September 1997, the applicant signed an AF Form 63, OFFICER/AIRMAN ACTIVE DUTY SERVICE COMMITMENT (ADSC) COUNSELING STATEMENT, indicating that he acknowledged and agreed to, among other things, incur a 36-month ADSC for W-MCE-l3BD1 under Table 1.5, Rule 5, AFI 36-2107 (See Applicant’s Attachment 1).

AFI 36-2107, dated 1 September 1998, Table 1.7, Rule 2, prescribed a 3-year ADSC for any technical (non-flying) training 20 or more weeks but less than 12 months in duration.  Although the ABM career field is not considered “flying,” prior to 1 October 1999, it was considered “technical” (non-flying) training.  Therefore, the three-year ADSC cited in Table 1.7, Rule 2 is correct.

The Personnel Data System (PDS) did not reflect an ADSC for the applicant’s completion of Undergraduate ABM Training until HQ AFPC discovered the error and updated it.  This discovery was made as part of a standard ADSC review associated with member’s application for separation in the Fall of 2000.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPSFO recommends denial of the application.  That office states, in part, that the applicant acknowledged and agreed to a three-year ADSC by signing an AF Form 63 on 10 September 1997.  They do not believe errors in the course, table, and rule citation on the form (in the applicant’s own words, “typographical errors”), negate the validity of an ADSC that is clearly stated on the form.

The applicant points to several instances of confusion pertaining to guidance on ABM ADSCs.  They readily admit that prior to the publication of the 1 June 2000 version of AFI 36-2107, differences between Undergraduate ABM Training and AWACS IQT often confused personnel working in the Military Personnel Flights (MPFs) who had the responsibility of counseling members on their ADSCs using AFI 36-2107 and AF Forms 63.  However, the applicant never states he was confused about the length of his ADSC prior to start of training.  They see no reason why an MPF counselor’s apparent confusion surrounding table, rule, and course citation should override the applicant’s clear acknowledgement of the actual ADSC length he would incur.

Applicant references the AFPC website as proof that prior to 1 June 2000, the “commitment for ABMs was 2 years.”  This information was erroneous and has since been revised.  However, this information was not published on the website until 2000 -- after the applicant had started and completed his training.  Therefore, the member could not have possibly used this information when making his decision whether or not to accept the ADSC for Undergraduate ABM Training.

In closing, HQ AFPC/DPSFO states that although the applicant has provided clear evidence of confusion in the field regarding the difference in ADSC length for Undergraduate ABM Training and AWACS IQT, he has not provided sufficient evidence that this confusion directly affected him or that he was not properly counseled on this ADSC (Exhibit C).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the advisory opinion was made available to the applicant for review and comment on 6 April 2001 (Exhibit D); however, to date, he has failed to respond.

_________________________________________________________________

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 a probable error or an 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 and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that 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 this application in Executive Session on 29 May 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

				Panel Chair
				Member
				Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 Feb 01, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSFO, dated 28 Mar 01.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 6 Apr 01.

                                   
                                   Panel Chair