RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-05260

  						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  YES 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) date of 15 May 19, incurred for undergraduate Air Battle Manager (ABM) training, be removed from his records.  

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His ADSC is in error because he had a pre-existing medical condition that disqualified him from flying.  He incurred the ADSC upon ABM training completion in May 2013, was placed on Duty Not Involving/Including Flying (DNIF) status in Dec 2013, and disqualified from flying in Sep 2014.  He should have never been qualified for flying duty as his medical condition was documented by medical personnel during pilot screening in Jun 2011.  Had the proper actions been taken, he would never had been placed in ABM training incurring the ADSC.  In support of his case, he cites BC-2008-02587 as precedence where the Board recommended to void the applicant’s ADSC.  

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

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

On 15 Aug 12, the applicant started Air Battle Manager training and graduated on 15 May 13.  

On 16 Apr 13, the applicant acknowledged an ADSC of six years.  

On 10 Sep 14, the applicant was medically disqualified and his aviation service was terminated.  

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/DPSIP recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice.  The applicant graduated from ABM training and awarded his aeronautical rating on 15 May 13 and 16 months later, on 10 Sep 14, he was medically disqualified.  Per AFI 36-2107, Active Duty Service Commitments, an ADSC incurred for training will become effective upon graduation date or completion of required training for specialty and furthermore, an ADSC is not affected by a change in a member’s duty Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC).  

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIP 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 medical personnel involved in his initial flight physical did not recommend a flying waiver in Jun 2011.  Despite the recommendation, AETC granted him a waiver.  This was clearly in error as the medical condition ultimately led to his disqualification from aviation service.  It was only after he had been re-examined to update his waiver that medical personnel disqualified him.  However, he had already completed ABM training.  He again cites BC-2008-02587 as precedent and asks the Board to rule in a similar fashion.  

A complete copy of the applicant’s rebuttal 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 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 or injustice.  With regard to the applicant’s citing another AFBCMR case as precedence, the Board was able to differentiate between the applicant’s case and that of the one the Board had previously granted relief.  In this regard, we found that even though in both cases the medical conditions were identified before flying training, in the applicant’s case his condition worsened overtime, which was not the case in the cited AFBCMR case.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief.

4.  The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS 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-2015-05260 in Executive Session on 30 Mar 17 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 4 Dec 15, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSIP, dated 2 May 16, w/atchs.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated, 28 Jun 16.
	Exhibit E.  Applicant’s Rebuttal, dated 6 Jul 16, w/atchs.

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.