RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:	BC-2008-01584 INDEX CODE:	128.05
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED:	NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His	Total	Active	Federal	Military	Service	Date	(TAFMSD)	be adjusted from May 1991 to May 1990.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was commissioned in May 1990 and placed in awaiting training status until an Undergraduate Pilot Training (UPT) slot was available. After one year of waiting, he was notified that his UPT slot, along with almost all others in his year group, had been cancelled. Due to no fault of his or the Air Force, he essentially lost one year of his life, unable to get a job commensurate with his education level due to his obligation to the Air Force. Current policy brings officers awaiting pilot training onto active duty in a casual status until their class date. He believes that the policy in 1990 was unjust and that he should receive full credit for the year that he lost.

The applicant has not provided any evidence in support of his appeal.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:
According to the Military Personnel Data System, the applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of lieutenant colonel with a date of rank of 1 November 2006. He has a TAFMSD and a Total Active Federal Commissioned Service Date of 15 May 1991.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial of the applicant’s request. DPSOA states that Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 1215.08, paragraph E3.5.1, dated 26 June 2006, reads “Graduates shall be ordered to active duty or active duty for training as soon as

possible within a 12-month period following their appointment as commissioned officers.” Therefore, the applicant’s delay to active duty was consistent with established policy then and now. They found no evidence of error or injustice, nor did the applicant submit any.

The DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit B.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant responds that it is current practice that upon graduation, Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) cadets who are destined for Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training (SUPT), are activated and placed into Awaiting Pilot Training (APT) status before their class begins. There were as many as four such individuals attached to his Fighter Squadron for periods up to one year before SUPT became available.

He did not sign a commitment to the Air Force until he was guaranteed an SUPT slot. However, he waited one full year, with orders in hand, when he was contacted and told that his slot, along with many others, had been cancelled permanently and that he could choose another career field or separate. He subsequently chose another career field that had no waiting list for training. Several years later, a Congressional Investigation was conducted that determined the Air Force had broken its promise to the cadets who had been promised SUPT slots. Bottom line, unlike the rest of the newly commissioned officers in his graduating ROTC class, he has one less year creditable towards retirement. The year gap between commissioning and activation would not be contestable if the injustice of cutting the SUPT slots had not occurred. Even if the SUPT slots had been maintained, despite the wording in DoDI 1215.08, current practice would not allow for such a long gap between commissioning and training to exist.

The applicant’s rebuttal 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 an 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
1.	
and adopt its 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 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 this application in Executive Session on 17 July 2008, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

Panel Chair 
Member
Member
The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2008-01584:

Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 23 Apr 08. Exhibit B.	Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 16 Jun 08. Exhibit C.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Jun 08.
Exhibit D.	Applicant’s Rebuttal, dated 25 Jun 08.