RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-03369

						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His active duty service commitment (ADSC) of 22 May 20 be corrected to 23 May 17.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The ADSC (22 May 20) he signed on 14 Jan 14 is erroneous because he had already completed three of four semesters in his master’s program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), and by law and Air Force Instruction (AFI) guidance, it should have been signed prior to the start of this program.  Prior to graduating from the United States Air Force Academy (USAFA) and commissioning he signed the ADSC that all cadets incur for attending a military service academy, which was that he must serve until 23 May 17.  Additionally, his permanent change of station (PCS) orders from the USAFA to MIT stated he would incur an ADSC of five years upon graduation from the USAFA IAW AFI 36-2107, Active Duty Service Commitments (ADSC).  

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant attended the USAFA in cadet status from 26 Jun 08 to 22 May 12.  

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 23 May 12.

On 5 Sep 12, according to documents submitted by the applicant, he started the master’s program at MIT with a projected graduation date of 22 Aug 14.

On 14 Sep 16, it was determined after reviewing the evidence provided that the applicant’s ADSC of 22 May 20 was incorrectly calculated.  AFBCMR brought this alleged error to the attention of the OPR, requested their review of the available evidence, and a new advisory if warranted (Exhibit E). 

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memoranda prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibits C and F.    

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSIPV recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice.  On 23 May 12, the applicant commissioned as an officer through the United States Air Force Academy (USAFA) Class of 2012.  During that time, he applied for and received a merit scholarship from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), for which he successfully completed the program earning a Master of Science in Operations Research.  On 12 Aug 13, AFPC sent the applicant a notice indicating he incurred an ADSC 3 times the length for completion of the Air Force Institute of Training (AFIT) program and that no record of his acknowledgement was on file or updated in the Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS) at AFPC.  On 21 Aug 13, the applicant stated he returned an AF Form 63, Active Duty Service Commitment Acknowledgement Statement, reflecting his agreement to serve the 3 times the length ADSC which is correct per AFI 36-2107, Rule 20.  This conversation was tracked and monitored in Right Now Technology (RNT), a system AFPC utilizes to track correspondence with members in regards to administrative issue.  Unfortunately a copy of the AF Form 63 is no longer available and was not uploaded to the Automated Records Management System (ARMS).  Following an audit it was discovered the applicant was missing an AF Form 63 in ARMS and AFPC reached out to him again on 07 Jan 14, requesting he accept the ADSC which he signed on 14 Jan 14 and returned on 16 Jan 14.  Although he was already part of the AFIT program the applicant did not take timely or appropriate actions to resolve the miscommunication and or withdraw from the AFIT program to avoid incurring an ADSC.  As a result, his record was updated to reflect an expiration date 22 May 20 for the scholarship program.  

Noting the applicant’s contention that AFI guidance requires the FSS commander to not allow members to proceed to education or training without a completed AF Form 63, they opined that the AFI serves as guidance on specific responsibilities of individuals and/or organizations, and they agreed that the Military Personnel Section should not have issued orders without properly verifying that an ADSC AF Form 63 had been acknowledged, however, this administrative oversight does not void the applicant’s obligations IAW AFI 36-2107, Para 1.3, “Failure to be notified or complete an AF Form  63 (or other prescribed  documentation) does not relieve the member of the ADSC.”

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

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 14 Mar 16 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D).  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.

ADDITONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION

AFPC/DPSIPV recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice warranting granting the relief requested.  They reiterate their previous advisory recommendation (Exhibit C), however, they have revised the applicant’s records to reflect an ADSC of 20 May 19, versus the previous ADSC of 20 May 20.  

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

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the additional Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 28 Sep 16 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit G).  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.

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 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.  We do note and agree with AFPC/DPSIPV’s administrative correction of the applicant’s ADSC of 20 May 19 versus the previous ADSC of 20 May 20.  In view of the above, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting any relief beyond that rendered administratively.

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-2015-03369 in Executive Session on 15 Nov 16, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-03369 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 3 Aug 15, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSIPV, dated 8 Mar 16.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Mar 16.
	Exhibit E.  Email, AFBCMR, dated 14 Sep 16.
	Exhibit F.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSIPV, dated 23 Sep 16, w/atch.
	Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Sep 16.  

Pursuant to paragraph 1 of AFI 36-2603 (Title 32 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 865.1), it is certified that a quorum was present at the Board's review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board's proceedings in the above entitled matter.