RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-01665 COUNSEL:	NONE
HEARING DESIRED:	NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His six (6) year Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) incurred for Undergraduate Remote Pilot Aircraft (RPA) training be corrected to reflect three (3) years.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The AF Form 63, ADSC Acknowledgment Contract, which he signed for Advance Flying Training was for a 3 year ADSC, in accordance with  AFI  36-2107,  Active  Duty  Service  Commitments,  dated
22 Apr 05, with 2009 Addendum. Currently the virtual Military Personnel Flight (vMPF) reflects an ADSC of January 2017.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of captain (O-3).

On 6 Dec 11, the applicant signed an AF Form 63, dated 6 Dec 11, acknowledging a 6 year ADSC for completion of Undergraduate RPA Training.

On 24 Aug 11, the applicant signed an AF Form 63, acknowledging a 3 year ADSC, for completion of Advanced Flying Training (AFT) Initial Qualification and Requalification.

On 7 Jan 11, the applicant signed an AF Form 63, acknowledging a
3 year ADSC, for completion of Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) Training.

The applicant’s current ADSC is reflected as 15 Mar 17, with reason code 37 (Undergraduate Remote Pilot Aircraft (RPA) Training).

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 wo uld ne ed to accept or decline the 6 year ADSC. The ADSC listed in AFI 36-2107, dated 22 Apr 05, Table I.I, Rule 16, indicates a 3 year ADSC is incurred for initial qualification. The rule applies to completion of the UAS Fundamental course (UP 4AA) and Initial Qualification and Requalification Training course ( MQIIQR). It does not speak to completion of the UAS Instrument Qualification Training (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 6 years.

The	applicant	was	provided	and	agreed	to	the	ADSC,	as	
evidenced	by	the	signed	AF	Form	63,	which	specifically	
indicated	the	6 year	requirement in accordance with policy	at the time.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIPV evaluation is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant refutes virtually every point made by the OPR and argues that the 8106 message referenced in the  advisory, attempts to hold him accountable for a program that he was not a part of nor eligible for, given its date. He entered active duty in Aug 2010, which clearly makes him ineligible for the UAS Beta Test Program.  The advisory referenced AF Form 63, dated
6 Dec 11, was emailed to the applicant after the completion of his training in Dec 2011. He would like to point out, when he signed this document, AFI 36-2107, dated 25 Nov 09, was still in effect. The 6 Dec 11, AF Form 63, incorrectly references an AFI that didn’t exist at the time.

It is not until after 2012, that this AF Form 63 is conveniently received, signed, and dated by a senior airman. The applicant further states that he was taken advantage of in this situation. He strongly desires the AF Form 63, with the legitimately referenced 3 year ADSC be upheld and the 6 year illegitimately

referenced ADSC be thrown out. He further asks that the board consider established precedent cases, such as those of his peers and classmates.

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 to include his rebuttal comments, 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. As for the case cited by the applicant where the member did not sign an AF Form 63, and corrective action was resolved through administrative procedures, the Board finds no such showing in this case. In this respect, the AF Form 63, dated 6 Dec 11, confirms that the applicant acknowledged and agreed to the six year commitment in accordance with the current policy. 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-2015-01665 in Executive Session on 5 Nov 15, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-01665 was considered:

Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 16 Apr 15, w/atchs. Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.	Memorandum, AFPC/DPSIVP, dated 20 May 15. Exhibit D.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 31 Jul 15.
Exhibit E.	Letter, Applicant, received 10 Aug 15.