RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-01285 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His six year Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) requirement for Undergraduate Remote Pilot Aircraft (RPA) Training be corrected to three years based on course MQ-1B Initial Qualification Training and MQ-11QR Requalification Training completed 25 Oct 12. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The Air Force Form 63, Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) Acknowledgement Statement dated 16 Dec 11, he signed states “According to AFI 36-2107 Table 1.1 Rule 12 you will incur an ADSC of six years for SUNT and JSUNT”. AFI 36-2107 (dated 22 Apr 05, with 2009 addendum) Table 1.1 rule 12 states an ADSC of six years will be incurred for undergraduate navigator training. He did not accomplish this training nor attempt to accomplish it. He completed Initial Flight Screening, UP3AA (USA Instrument Qualification) Remote Fundamentals Course, and Initial Qualification Training in unmanned aerial systems, which is reflected on the AF Form 63, dated 27 Apr 12. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: During the matter in question the applicant was serving in the Regular Air Force in the grade of second lieutenant (0-1). On 16 Dec 11, the applicant signed AF Form 63 acknowledging and agreeing that he would incur an ADSC of six years after completion of Undergraduate Remote Pilot Aircraft (RPA) Training. On 27 Apr 12, the applicant signed AF Form 63 acknowledging and agreeing that he would incur an ADSC of three years after completion of MQ-1B Initial Qualification and Requalification Training (MQ11QR) . The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIPV recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. In 2008, the Air Force Chief of Staff announced the proper development and integration of Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS). Specifically, the Chief stressed the need to rapidly bolster the equipment, training, and operational capability of the UAS with highly trained officers. The ADSC requirement for the UAS undergraduate course was published in the 8106 message, mandating that anyone entering the program to accept or decline the six year ADSC. The ADSC listed in AFI 36-2107, Active Duty Service Comments (ADSC), dated 22 Apr 05, Table 1.1, Rule 16, indicates a three year ADSC is incurred for initial qualification. The rule applies to completion of the UP4AA and MQIIQR (initial qualification) courses. It does not speak to completion of the UP3AA course, which is required to earn the RPA rating. The ADSC policy for the UP3AA course as published in the 8106 message is and always has been six years. The applicant completed UAS Instrument Qualification Training (UP3AA) on 11 Apr 12; UAS Fundamental Course (UP4AA) on 2 Aug 12; and Initial Qualification and Requalification Training (MQlIQR), 25 Oct 12. He was provided and agreed to an AF Form 63 which specifically indicated the six year requirement vice three years for the training according to Air Force policy at the time he entered. He received and signed the correct commitment. He should be held to it and remain on active duty according to the program he applied for. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIPV evaluation is at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant refutes the points made by the OPR by stating the 8106 message that indicated anyone interested in entering the program could accept or decline the six year ADSC was never provided to him. In addition, it was addressed “Send to all Captains that ARE NOT pilots”. The memorandum does not mandate these standards for future classes. The ADSC signed on 16 Dec 11 was labeled six years but all other aspects of the form do not align with any of the documentation provided in AFI 36-2107 of the 8106 message. The form was manually modified to change the training to RPA, with no initials or notice of change. A complete copy of the applicant’s response is at Exhibit E. 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 injustice. We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission, including his rebuttal, 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 the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice. While the board acknowledges the AF Form 63 and governing AFI possibly could have been revised in a more timely manner, it finds the applicant was given due notice he would incur a six year ADSC for the accepted training. We do not find the applicant has presented sufficient evidence he is being held to an ADSC he only learned of after the fact. We find the errors pointed out by the applicant to be harmless and of no significant impact on his decision to accept unmanned aerial systems training and that he has not been thereby made the victim of an injustice that should be remedied by granting his requested relief. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-01285 in Executive Session on 5 Jan 16 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-01285 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 23 Mar 15, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSIPV, dated 20 May 15. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Jun 15. Exhibit E. Rebuttal, dated 21 Jul 15.