RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-00568 INDEX CODE: 113.04 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His 3-year Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) incurred for Predator Basic Course (Advanced Flying Training) be removed. ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was not aware of an ADSC in conjunction with his advanced flying training. He never agreed to an ADSC extension for his training, nor was he given an opportunity to decline the assignment that would ultimately extend his commitment. He did not sign an AF Form 63, Officer/Airman Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) Acknowledgment Statement or any other form of notification. His Permanent Change of Station (PCS) paperwork specifically indicated a PCS ADSC, but no training ADSC. His PCS paperwork takes precedence over AFI 36-2107, Active Duty Service Commitments, Paragraph 1.3.1., which states “Failure to complete an AF Form 63 (or other prescribed documentation) does not relieve the member of the ADSC.” Flying training specifically calls for paperwork other than an AF Form 63. The documentation provided shows he did not have a training ADSC listed at the time of his PCS. His PCS to a Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) assignment is a 3-year controlled tour, and should not be confused with an ADSC extension. In support of his request, the applicant provided a personal statement, his reassignment Report on Individual Personnel (RIP), a change of projected assignment sheet, and his PCS order. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ _ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant attended and graduated from the Predator Basic course “PREDPSOBC” on or about 14 Apr 06. Records indicate he did not sign an AF Form 63, prior to departing for training. His PCS orders show no ADSC listed at the time of his PCS move. According to his Notification of Selection for Reassignment RIP he incurred a 24-month ADSC for his PSC assignment and no ADSC for his training. The lack of the ADSC documentation on his reassignment RIP was due to the fact the member’s advanced flying training course was not loaded into the military training database prior to his departure for training. ________________________________________________________________ _ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPS recommends denial of the applicant’s request to remove the three-year ADSC for the Predator Basic course. DPS states he may request a waiver of his ADSC in conjunction with separation in accordance with AFI 36-3207 or as an exception to policy, if he wishes to separate from the Air Force prior to completing the ADSC. DPS states that the lack of ADSC documentation was due to the fact that the member’s advanced flying training course was not loaded into the military training database. A formal training course quota is how the ADSC office (HQ AFPC/DPSOTES) is notified to generate and forward an AF Form 63 to the member. Since this action did not take place, the member was allowed to depart PCS without any ADSC listed for the training. DPS states AFPC/DPSOTES was contacted by the Predator functional area manger (FAM) with a list of over 100 members that did not have their ADSCs updated for the Predator Basic course. All affected members have had their advanced flying training ADSCs retroactively updated. The complete DPS evaluation is at Exhibit B. ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: His desire to correct his records is in no way a means for him to separate from the Air Force now, or in the immediate future. He states the Air Force personnel system failed him and his fellow aviators. The Air Force admits to the error concerning the failure of AFPC to inform over 100 airmen of an ADSC associated with the Predator training. However, citing the AFI governing training ADSCs does not shift the responsibility to the member and alleviate AFPC’s duty to get the paperwork right. The regulation specifically states the absence of an AF Form 63 does not relieve the member from the associated ADSC. While this statute holds true, it does not apply in his case. An AF Form 63, was completed, signed, and returned. AFPC’s problem is that the AF Form 63 did not include the ADSC; in fact, it specifically states that there would be no ADSC for training. Failure to complete the AF Form 63, is not the same as completing the AF Form 63, and having AFPC change the contract a year later. Someone at AFPC considered a pilot shortage in the Predator community, so the personnel function plugged a hole in the dam for 6-9 months, by denying these Airmen the opportunity to exercise the choice they have earned. The applicant’s complete response 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. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of 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 that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. While the applicant presented evidence that his PCS assignment paperwork did not list an ADSC for the advanced flying training, we note AFI 36-2107, as cited by the OPR, clearly states that a failure to document an ADSC does not relieve the member of an ADSC. Additionally, the applicant has an administrative avenue for relief by requesting a waiver of the ADSC if he desires to separate. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. ________________________________________________________________ _ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of 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 Docket Number BC-2008-00568 in Executive Session on 14 January 2009, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, Panel Chair XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, Member XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number BC-2008-00568 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 25 Jan 08, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPS, dated 1 Aug 08. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 Aug 08. Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 14 Sep 08.