RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-01074 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) be changed to remove the last 36 months ADSC. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was not informed prior to entering into his requalification training that he would incur an ADSC. Approximately one week after the training started he was informed there would be an additional 36 months service commitment. It was both unfair and unjust to be misled into accepting a training requirement that benefits the Air Force without being informed of the personal cost of extended service. Both his Notification of Selection for Reassignment and his Request and Authorization for Permanent Change of Station (PCS) order reflect a “zero” ADSC for training. The proper notification and counseling should have been provided prior to his training beginning, not after. He cites the governing AFI, requesting the Board to acknowledge this ADSC was unjustly incurred and correct his records to reflect the original training ADSC as agreed to on the Notification of Selection for Reassignment and his PSC order. He entered into requalification training on 4 Aug 09 and was notified by e-mail on 12 Aug 09 that he acquired a 36 month ADSC for this training. On 11 Sep 09, he completed the training course and on 30 Sep 09, he began asking how he could resolve the ADSC issue. He contacted the Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC) only to be told he had to submit a request in the “Ask a Question” section of their website. He submitted a request through the AFPC website; however, he did not hear back from them until 16 Oct 09 when he received an e-mail response from AFPC/DPSTO that is summarized as follows: a. DPSTO acknowledged he had not been sent the ADSC prior to his training which is in direct violation of AFI 36-2107, para 2.6.6. b. DPSTO states “But again failure to obtain formal acknowledgement, whether due to administrative oversight or other actions, does not negate the ADSC if the ADSC-incurring event has been entered into.” This statement is inconsistent with AFI 36- 2107, para 2.6.6, and leaves one to wonder if the program is being administered IAW the governing instruction. c. DPSTO is also concerned about his possible knowledge of any ADSC associated with this training; he assures the Board he did not know of any ADSC associated with the requalification training. He illustrates his point by stating that during his initial upgrade to the surveillance officer position, he was not given an ADSC and therefore, based on past experience, had no reason to believe there was an ADSC associated with requalification training. d. Furthermore, DPSTO is concerned about previous ADSC’s received during his career, he had two others; both ADSC’s for training were received well in advance of the training start date which provided him time to make an informed decision prior to accepting the training. He believes had he been properly informed of the additional 36 month ADSC, he would have exercised other options to prevent incurring another ADSC. One thing he would have done differently was to ensure his losing and gaining commanders were made aware of the training requirement in order to keep his qualification from lapsing which would have prevented the need for him to attend formal requalification training. Additionally, he would have sought an upgrade qualification as an alternative, which currently does not come with an ADSC. Lastly, he could have extended his tour overseas since his losing commander offered that option which would have given him even more time to consider other options. Bottom line is that the Air Force failed to notify him of the training ADSC which prevented him from responding appropriately. In support of his request, the applicant provides a copy of his entire communications and documentation regarding the ADSC issue. His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ___________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is currently on active duty serving in the grade of captain (0-3E). Additional relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force. Accordingly, there is no need to recite these facts in this Record of Proceedings. ___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPTO recommends denial. DPTO acknowledges the Air Force did not due diligence IAW the governing AFI. However, DPTO states the applicant attended several other training courses in his career, and has constructive knowledge of the requirement and subsequent addition ADSC associated with that particular training course. In addition, the applicant was a non-select for promotion on the last promotion board list and is eligible for retirement. If he is a non-select on the next promotion board he will have a mandatory retirement date of 1 Sep 11; making the ADSC in question irrelevant. The DPTO complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit B. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant responds by stating he disagrees with DPTO’s comment that he had constructive knowledge of the requirement. In the past, he attended two courses that had an associated ADSC; however, he had plenty of time to make an informed decision. He refutes the statement that “…subsequent addition to his personnel record of appropriate ADSC associated with a training event.” The ADSC change to his records was unjust because he was unaware that his records were being changed. He restates his original contentions that he was not informed of the ADSC associated with this training before entering into the training. The applicant’s complete submission 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. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice. In this respect, we note the opinion of the Air Force office of primary responsibility; however, we disagree. We also note the Air Force office of primary responsibility agrees with the applicant’s assertion that he was not adequately briefed prior to the start of the training. As a result, he could not make an informed decision. After reviewing the evidence provided by the applicant, to include his PCS order that reflects “zero” training ADSC, we are persuaded he attended the training course in good faith without incurring an additional ADSC. Consequently, we agree that the Air Force did not due diligence with respect to counseling the applicant on the 36 month ADSC associated with the requalification training course. Therefore, we recommend that the records be corrected as indicated below. ___________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that his 36-month Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) he incurred for completion of Advance Flying Training E-8 Surveillance Officer Requalification Training course be declared void. ___________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2010-01074 in Executive Session on 16 Dec 10, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 28 Feb 10, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPTO, dated 29 Apr 10. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Jun 10. Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 22 Jun10.