RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03989 COUNSEL: HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His specialized undergraduate pilot training (SUPT) active duty service commitment (ADSC) be corrected to 8 years instead of the current 10 years. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was given the incorrect ADSC at the completion of SUPT. Per AFI 36-2107, Active Duty Service Commitments (ADSC) and Specified Period of Time Contracts (SPTC), the duration of an ADSC for SUPT is determined by the date when training begins, commissioning source and date, and categorization upon entering extended active duty (EAD). At the time he started SUPT in Aug 99, he accepted the required ADSC commitment of 8-years. In Jun 00, he was eliminated from SUPT due to a medical misdiagnosis. On 15 Jan 04, the AFBCMR directed he be reinstated into SUPT. Reinstatement is not the same as beginning training. He was not required to reapply to SUPT. When he was reinstated he was credited with some portion of training he had previously completed and given credit toward his aviation service date. Therefore, having originally starting training prior to 1 Oct 99, being commissioned in FY99 and entering EAD as a pilot, his ADSC should be 8-years. However, he was told he would not receive his SUPT orders without first signing a new ADSC for the 10-year period for people beginning training after 1 Oct 99. In order not to lose his SUPT slot he relented and signed the increased ADSC, but vowed to research the policy and protest, if warranted. Now, the additional two years of ADSC is preventing him from qualifying for the FY14 Aviator Retention Pay (ARP) Program. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant was initially appointed to the grade second lieutenant in the Reserve of the Air Force on 21 Dec 98 after graduating from Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corp (AFROTC). According to the documentation submitted by the applicant, on 19 Apr 00, he signed an AF Form 63, Officer/Airman Active Duty Service Commitment Acknowledgement Statement, agreeing to serve an 8-year ADSC for SUPT training. On 26 Jun 00, he was diagnosed as having reactive airway disease/asthma while he was attending SUPT, and was medically eliminated from SUPT. On 15 Jan 04, the AFBCMR determined the medical diagnosis which eliminated him for SUPT was in error, and directed the applicant be reinstated into SUPT (BC-2003-03556). On 5 Mar 04, the applicant signed an AF Form 63 agreeing to a 10-year ADSC for SUPT training. On 27 Apr 04, the applicant was reinstated into SUPT, completing training on 20 May 05. 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 2000, the applicant was medically eliminated from pilot training. Although he had been categorized as a pilot upon entering EAD, when he was eliminated from SUPT he was reclassified into the Communications and Information Officer Career Field. In 2003, the applicant received an exception to policy to reenter SUPT from the Air Force Medical Support Agency (AFMSA) Deputy Chief of Physical Standards. As a result the applicant re-entered SUPT in 2004 and successfully completed the training and was awarded his wings on 20 May 05. AFI 36-2107 requires that officers who started training on or after 1 Oct 99 incur an 8 (Sic) year ADSC. The applicant started training after 1 Oct 99 and agreed to the 10-year ADSC for his training. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIPV evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In further support of the applicant’s request, he disagrees with the way AFPC/DPSIPV applies AFI 36-2107. The DPSIPV advisory states he was granted an exception to policy for a medical condition. Had that been the case, he would have been validly disqualified and required to reapply to SUPT, and sign a new ADSC agreement. However, the AFMSA indicated his condition was most likely caused by a viral infection and not a disqualifying medical condition. Therefore, he was not required to reapply to SUPT, and he should have been reinstated into SUPT under the same conditions of his original contract associated with the UPT slot he initially earned. In addition, he also requests the BCMR approved him for, and enrolled him in, the FY2014 Active Component Aviator Retention Pay (ACP) Program. 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 response to the advisory opinion, in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of AFPC/DPSIPV 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 applicant was initially eliminated from SUPT due to the misdiagnosis of a medical condition, he subsequently had the choice of continuing to serve in a non-rated career field or return to flying with a 10-year ADSC. He made the personal choice to accept the longer ADSC and voluntarily signed a valid 10-year ADSC contract in order to return to flying. 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 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-2014-03989 in Executive Session on 9 Jul 15 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 11 Sep 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSIPV, dated 3 Apr 15, w/atchs. Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Apr 15. Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 15 May 15.