RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS. IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-01833 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The AF Form 63, Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) Acknowledgement Statement, dated 21 Jul 11, be removed from his records and his ADSC for six years be changed to three. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The AF Form 63, dated 21 Jul 11, reflects a six year commitment based on AFI 36-2107, Active Duty Service Commitments (ADSC), Table 1.1, Rule 12 for Undergraduate Navigator Training (UNT) in which he did not accomplish or attempt to accomplish. The AF Form 63 does not have any date reference for UAS/RPA training in the remarks section. Therefore, this ADSC paperwork should not be applicable to any ADSC that is enforced as none of the references are applicable. The AF Form 63, dated 30 Nov 11, reflects the correct table and Rule (16) but there is a line through three years and six years was handwritten on the form without any initials or date to properly mark the change. At the time he signed the AF Forms 63, AFI 36-2107 did not include a reference or rule for Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) training other than Table 1.1, Rule 16, three years for Advanced Flying Training (AFT). AFPC reviewed his records and stated that under the recently revised AFI 36-2107 (dated 30 April 2012) he incurred a six year commitment; meaning the requirements for the course he attended was incorrectly changed after his participation. Furthermore, his ADSC was unjustly changed and increased by AFPC without any verbal or written notification. If the ADSC he incurred for his training was six years then he accepted to enter this training under inaccurate information. He acted in good faith that the material provided to him by AFPC was correct. The records indicate that AFPC changed the required ADSC for the UAS/Remote Pilot Aircraft (RPA) pipeline after he had already participated. The after the fact actions taken by AFPC to extend his ADSC based on inapplicable paperwork and a lack of written guidance at the time of the incident is unjust and should be corrected. In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal statement in which he references AFBCMR cases that he believes are similar to his (BC-2012-02866, BC-2012-05084, and BC-2013- 01807); AF Forms 63, dated 29 Mar 11, 13 Jun 11, 21 Jul 11, and 30 Nov 11 along with excerpts from AFI 36-2107, dated 22 Apr 05. 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 (Capt, O-3). According to Special Order (SO) AB-003, dated 17 Feb 11, the applicant was appointed to the grade of second lieutenant in the Regular Air Force, effective 18 Feb 11. According to the applicant’s AF Form 63, dated 29 Mar 11, he agreed to serve a three-year ADSC for AFT, RPA Initial Flight Screening training. According to the applicant’s AF Form 63, dated 13 Jun 11, he agreed to serve a three-year ADSC for AFT, UAS Instrument training. According to the applicant’s AF Form 63, dated 21 Jul 11, he agreed to serve a six-year ADSC for AFT, Specialized Undergraduate Navigator Training (SUNT)/Joint Specialized Undergraduate Navigator Training (JSUNT) course based on Table 1.1, Rule 12. The evidence reflects the applicant did not attend this course. However, the remarks section of the AF Form 63, indicates he would incur “an ADSC of ten years for undergraduate Pilot training, six years for undergraduate navigator training, or six years for air battle manager undergraduate training. Course Title: RPA, with a projected class graduation date 21 Sep 2011.” The applicant’s AF Form 63, dated 30 Nov 11, reflects a three year ADSC and there is a line through three years. Six years was handwritten on the form for the AFT, MQ-1B Initial Qualification and Requalification course. According to the Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS), the applicant’s current Active Duty Service Commitment Date (ADSCD) is 20 Sep 17. 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. The ADSC in effect for RPA at the time was and still is six years, therefore, the applicant incurred and agreed to the six-year ADSC expiring on 20 Sep 17. In 2008, the Air Force Chief of Staff announced the proper development and integration of 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 to accept or decline the six-year ADSC. On 21 Sep 11, the applicant completed Undergraduate RPA training. He was provided and agreed to an AF Form 63 which specifically indicated the 6 year requirement vice 3 years for Undergraduate Navigator Training (UNT). However, the AF Form 63 has the correct training information located in the remarks section IAW Air Force policy at the time the applicant entered training. The fact that he received and signed the correct commitment amount he should be held to it and remain on active duty according to the program he applied for. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIPV evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 28 Oct 15 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). 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 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 OPR and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an injustice. Additionally, we note the applicant references three BCMR cases (BC-2012-02866, BC-2012-05084, and BC-2013-01807) he believes support his request for relief. However, every case before this Board is considered on its own merit since the circumstances of each case are seldom identical. While we do strive for consistency in the manner in which evidence is evaluated and analyzed, we are not bound to recommend relief in one circumstance simply because the situation being reviewed appears similar to other cases. We have reviewed the facts of the referenced cases and find the circumstances of those cases to be distinguishable and that no facts are provided which bolster the applicant’s request for relief. In this respect, it appears the applicants in the referenced cases signed an AF Form 63 acknowledging the three-year commitment. Thus, the Board found it in the interest of justice to correct the records accordingly. Contrarily, we do not find the same circumstances in the instant case as the evidence reflects the applicant actually agreed to the six-year ADSC. As such, we do not find the cases he references support his request to change his ADSC from six years to three. In view of the foregoing, we conclude the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of proof of having suffered an injustice. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 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-2015-01833 in Executive Session on 23 Feb 16 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-01833 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 28 Apr 15, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSIPV, dated 9 Oct 15, w/atch. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Oct 15.