RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-05084 COUNSEL: HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His active duty service commitment (ADSC) incurred for participation in the Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Beta Test Program (UBTP) be changed from six years to three years. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: In 2008, he received information through his chain of command that the Air Force was seeking volunteers for Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) Beta Test Program (UBTP). In February 2009, he completed and submitted his application to volunteer for the program. He received a training allocation Report on Individual Person (RIP) notifying him of his selection to attend the UAS Instrument Qualification course. The RIP was accompanied by an AF Form 63, stating that he would incur a 3 year Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC), which he signed on 24 June 2009. The instructions also confirmed that he would incur a 36-month ADSC. On 17 July 2009, he received another Training Allocation RIP informing him of his selection to attend the UAS Fundamentals Course. The RIP did not state an ADSC would be incurred for the course, but directed him to see the Education and Training Course Announcement (ETCA) for full reporting instructions. Those instructions stated a 36-month ADSC would be incurred for the training. He signed the RIP on 27 July 2009 and attended the course from 30 October – 2 December 2009. Over a 16-month period, he received orders and attended six separate periods of temporary duty and one permanent change of station for five bases. At no time did he suspect any of these commands were erroneous in the processing of his orders. There were several flaws in the actions of AFPC, and the after the fact extension of his ADSC is both an error and injustice. In support of his appeal, the applicant submits a 66-paragragh personal statement, training allocation RIPS, AF Form 63, Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) Acknowledgement Statement, e-mail correspondence and documentation from his master personnel records. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is a captain in the Regular Air Force. The remaining relevant facts, extracted from the applicant’s master personnel records, are outlined in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of responsibility, which is included at Exhibit B. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIP recommends denial. On 3 October 2008, the Air Force Personnel Center Director of Assignments (AFPC/DPA) announced a Beta Test Program for the Unmanned Aircraft Systems. Interested officers were informed that they had to meet certain requirements for consideration and once selected and upon successful completion of the program, they would incur a 6-year ADSC. The applicant was selected for the USAF Beta Test Group Nomination Panel. He was notified through his Military Personnel Section staff. He entered and completed his training classes on 9 April 2010. As stated in the solicitation message, members successfully completing the training would incur the 6 year ADSC. AFPC recognizes the officers should have been provided an AF Form 63 which specifically indicated the 6-year ADSC requirement for this training. Unfortunately, in the early stages of the program, the corresponding support for updating the code in the military personnel data system (MILPDS) was not yet available. As a result, some base personnel clerks did not provide members with accurate AF Form 63’s and in other cases, AF Form 63’s were not completed at all. The lack of accurate forms and the MILPDS update capability contributed to processing errors. As the applicant states, many aspects were not finalized from 2008 through 2010. Without question, the program evolved, however, the commitment length did not. The applicant challenges the ADSC stating neither the general visiting his Squadron Officer’s School, nor his aides, briefed him on any specific ADSC. If the general spoke about the program, he would have obtained a talking paper as required when senior leaders speak on personnel programs; the 8106 message would have been the source of that information. The applicant highlights the training allocation notification RIP he received for the training as justification for establishing a 3-year vice 6-year ADSC. However, the ADSC for this program was not yet listed in the AFI based upon its recent establishment; nor was it input in the MILPDS or posted on the Education and Training Course Announcement Website. At that time, the only aspect of the program listed in AFI 36-2107, Active Duty Service Commitments (ADSC), dated 22 April 2005, at that time applied to advanced flying training and not initial skills training which UP3AA is defined as. It does not speak to completion of the UP3AA which is required to earn the RPA rating. The ADSC policy for the UP3AA course as published in the 8106 message and selection letter is 6 years. The Chief’s 2008 mandate was finally incorporated into the 20 April 2012, AFI. The administrative procedures for processing the AF Form 63 are listed under Table 1.1, Rule 34. AFPC acknowledges the applicant signed the AF Form 63 on 23 June 2009 reflecting a 3 year commitment. They further acknowledge, that he did not sign a Training Allocation Notification RIP reflecting the correct ADSC; neither had an ADSC reflected on it. However, prior to him ever him ever receiving the incorrect AF Form 63, he had to receive a copy of the solicitation message that clearly stated that upon successful conclusion of training, he would incur a 6 year ADSC. The production of AF Form 63, RIPs, and ETCA were an administrative oversight. The ADSC was published via 8106 message and selection letter, both of which, he was made aware of. Therefore, his ADSC will expire on 27 October 2015. As part of ADSC management, APFC routinely audits active duty records to identify potential errors and take appropriate action to correct them. One such audit revealed the applicant erroneously signed an AF Form 63 with a 3 year commitment, when the correct commitment was 6 years. As a result, he was notified of the error and MILPDS was updated. The complete DPSIP evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit B. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC’s advisory opinion recommends denial based on the fact that ADSC in effect for the UAS has always been 6 years. However, the historical records indicate that AFPC changed the required ADSC after he participated. While AFPC argues he was informed of the 6-year ADSC via the solicitation message, the message does not reveal the commitment would be segmented and assigned to different courses. The solicitation message would have needed to describe the three periods of ADSC to describe the policy AFPC actually followed in 2009 and 2010. He acted in good faith that the material provided by AFPC was correct. He planned his career and his family’s life in reliance of the ADSC agreement. He requests the Board rectify this unfair situation by restoring his original ADSC. The applicant’s completed 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. We thoroughly considered the applicant’s complete submission and the office of primary responsibility’s recommendation not to change the record. However, we believe a preponderance of the evidence supports corrective action. The applicant has submitted documentation supporting his contention that he signed a contract for a 3-year ADSC. He has also provided substantial evidence supporting this was a systemic problem. As such, we find the applicant was not properly counseled regarding the correct term of his commitment. Accordingly, we recommend that the applicant’s record be corrected as indicated below. 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 DETERMINES THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that the six- year Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) he incurred for completion of Unmanned Aircraft Systems Undergraduate Remote Pilot Aircraft Training be declared void and his ADSC date be adjusted to reflect 8 April 2013, rather than 27 October 2015. ________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-05084 in Executive Session on 22 August 2013, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 30 Oct 12, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Letter, ARPC/DPSIP, dated 21 Nov 12, w/atchs. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Dec 12. Exhibit D. Applicant’s Response, undated.