RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02866 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Active Duty Service Date (ADSC) be changed from 7 Jun 16 to 9 Dec 13. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His ADSC for Undergraduate Remote Pilot Aircraft (RPA) training be based on his AF Form 63, Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) Acknowledgment Statement, dated 25 Jun 10. He acknowledges the Personnel Services Delivery Memorandum (PSDM) announcement calling for applications for training stated individuals would incur a six-year ADSC upon completion of the training. However, upon notification that he had been selected for the training, he was informed and counseled the training incurred a 36-month ADSC, which is contrary to the PSDM. He accepted the training by signing training Reports of Individual Personnel (RIPs) that reflected a 36-month ADSC and subsequently signed an AF Form 63 with a three-year ADSC. In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of his training allocation RIPs. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIP recommends denial, stating, in part, the ADSC in effect for the Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) has always been six years. Therefore, the applicant’s ADSC was correctly adjusted to reflect the six-year commitment following the discovery via an ADSC audit. The applicant was selected by the 16 Dec 09 USAF UAS Beta Test Group Nomination Panel. Accordingly, local Military Personnel Section (MPS) staffs were charged with counseling selected officers on the six-year ADSC associated with the successful completion of the UAS program. With that, he completed Initial Flight Training, 21 Jan – 24 Feb 10; Initial Qualification and Requalification Training (MQIIQR), 20 Sep – 10 Dec 10; UAS Instrument Qualification Training (UP3AA), 5 Apr – 8 Jun 10; and UAS Fundamental Course (UP4AA), 9 Jun – 9 Jul 10. In order to apply, he had to follow the instructions outlined in the Air Force message which clearly indicated a six-year commitment following the award of the RPA rating. To that end, AFPC recognizes he should have been provided an additional AF Form 63, Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) Acknowledgement Statement, upon completion of the UP3AA course to further confirm acknowledgement of the six-year commitment. The applicant highlights guidance in AFI 36-2107, Active Duty Service Commitments (ADSC), as justification for establishing a three-year vice six-year ADSC. The ADSC for this program was not yet listed in AFI 36-2107 based upon its recent establishment. However, the ADSC policy for the UP3AA course as published in the 8106 message and selection letter is and always has been six years. Therefore, his ADSC following successful completion of the UAS Program (UP3AA) expires 7 Jun 16. AFPC acknowledges that he signed the AF Form 63 for the UP4AA course on 25 Jun 10, reflecting a three-year commitment, and that he did not sign a subsequent AF Form 63 following completion of the UP3AA course. However, the fact that he did not sign another AF Form 63 does not relieve him of the associated commitment. The purpose of the Training Allocation Notification RIP and AF Form 63 is to document acknowledgement of the ADSC; the RIP and form are not the ADSC authorizing authority. The ADSC authority was published via the 8106 message and selection letter, both of which he was made aware. Therefore, his ADSC following successful completion of the UAS Program (UP3AA) is correctly annotated as 6 years and will expire on 7 Jun 16. AFPC routinely audits active duty records to identify potential errors and takes appropriate action to correct them. The audit performed revealed that the applicant did not have a signed AF Form 63 on file; he was notified of the error, and the Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS) was correctly updated, and an AF Form 63 was sent to him for acknowledgment. The complete DPSIP evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit B. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: It is a grievous act for AFPC to change his commitment almost two years after he completed the training. He was never counseled, nor did he agree to a six-year ADSC. AFPC acknowledges that he signed a RIP that did not reflect a six-year ADSC. If the ADSC he incurred for his training was six years then he accepted to enter training under inaccurate information. He viewed the RIPs he signed as contracts, and considered any written and verbal communication he received prior to signing them as null and void. It was his understanding the signed RIPs was the acknowledgement that he agreed to enter the training he was selected for. His ADSC should be changed back to 3 years due to the fact he was never formally notified of a six-year training commitment. He was counseled by his squadron commander that he would incur a three-year ADSC upon successfully completion of the program. The AFPC memorandum dated 16 Dec 09 was not forwarded to him by the MPS, his leadership, or AFPC either in written or verbal form. If, in fact, the MPS was supposed to counsel officers selected for the RPA Pilot BETA Test Program, then they failed to accomplish this tasking. AFPC is conveniently rewriting history to cover multiple errors on their part which impacts over 40 graduates of this program. They are holding him and other Beta graduates in 2009 and 2010 accountable to an ADSC in AFI 36-2107, which was written in Apr 12. The previous version of the AFI did not account for the RPA Pilot ADSC. AFPC asserts the 8106 “application” message soliciting volunteers for Unmanned Aircraft Systems Beta Test Program, is the ADSC authority for the RPA Pilot Beta Test Program. In fact, it is simply a message notifying qualified individuals of an opportunity to apply for the program. To assert that this solicitation should serve as binding authority over an ADSC over any written and signed documentation is simply egregious. AFPC is selectively applying part of the message to apply to his case. This message does not specify a specific course. AFPC’s advisory opinion states that he did not sign an AF Form 63 for UP3AA – UAS Instrument Qualification Course. He did sign an AF Form 63 for this training in the Spring of 2010, despite the fact that the RIP only indicated that he would incur an ADSC of “0” months for completing the course. However, he was informed by the Joint Base San Antonio MPS that the three-year ADSC for the UP4AA – UAS Fundamentals Course was rolled into the UP3AA – UAS Instrument Qualification Course. Unfortunately this document (AF Form 63 for the UP3AA course) has been removed from his personnel records, and he is unable to provide a copy to the Board. The AF Form 63 he signed on 25 Jun 10 reflecting a three- year commitment is for MQIIQR –MQ-1 Initial Qualification Training, not UP4AA – UAS Fundamentals Course as stated in AFPC’s advisory opinion. He has provided documentation from two RPA Beta Test Program graduates that reflect a three-year ADSC for the UP3AA Course. He understands and acknowledges that administrative mistakes are common in establishing a new training program; however, for it to take two years to correct this error is absolutely abhorrent. He has been working under a set of expectations that were clearly defined to him through his RIPs and counseling by his MPS. To change the game this late in the process is both inconceivable and unjust. The applicant's complete response, with attachments, 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 warranting corrective action. After a careful review of the available evidence of record and the documentation submitted in the applicant’s behalf, the Board majority is inclined to grant relief. DPSIP indicates the current governing directive did not reflect the ADSC for completion of the UP3AA course and the ADSC is and has always been six years; nonetheless, it appears the applicant signed the AF Form 63 as instructed, in good faith, acknowledging the three-year commitment. As such, the Board majority finds it reasonable to believe the applicant would understand that his commitment was only for three years. Further, the Board majority notes that errors similar to this one do occur from time to time; however, they find the timeframe it took to remedy this error constitutes an injustice to the applicant. In view of the above, the Board majority finds the applicant has met his burden of proof that he has suffered from an error or an injustice, and that the requested relief should be granted. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Board majority recommends the six-year ADSC of 7 Jun 16 be removed from his record. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that he incurred a three-year Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) of 9 Dec 13, rather than a six-year ADSC of 7 Jun 16, for completion of the Unmanned Aircraft System Instrument Qualification Training course. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-02866 in Executive Session on 9 Apr 13, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member By a majority vote, the Board recommended approval of the application. voted to deny the applicant’s request and elected not to submit a minority report. The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 29 Jun 12, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSIP, dated 20 Jul 12, w/atchs. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Aug 12. Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 4 Sep 12, w/atchs.