RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 				DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-02192

 						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) for attending the 
Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) Instrument Course be corrected to 
reflect 2 August 2015.    


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His AF Form 63, Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) 
Acknowledgement Statement, dated 6 October 2011, reflects he 
incurred a six year ADSC for Undergraduate Navigator Training 
(UNT).  However, he did not complete UNT but completed the 
initial UAS course.  His ADSC for attending the initial UAS 
course should be three years per AFI 36-2107, Active Duty 
Service Commitment (ADSC), Table 1.1, Rule 16.  

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is in the Regular Air Force in the grade of 
captain (O-3).  

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 B.    


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSIPV recommends denial.  The ADSC in effect for Remotely 
Piloted Aircraft (RPA) at the time was and still is six years as 
published in the attached 8106 message, Soliciting Volunteers 
for Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Beta Test Program-Suspense 
3 November 2008.  The applicant agreed to and incurred with the 
six year ADSC expiring on 3 January 2018.  

The applicant completed undergraduate RPA training on 4 January 
2012, he agreed to an AF Form 63 which specifically indicated 
the six year requirement, vice 3 years, for UNT.  The AF Form 
63 reflects the correct course information in the Remarks 
section.  He should be held to the correct six year commitment 
given he received and signed the correct commitment amount 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 B.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the 
applicant on 13 November 2015 for review and comment within 
30 days (Exhibit C).  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 OPR and adopt its rationale as 
the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the 
victim of an error or injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of 
evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting 
the requested relief.


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-2015-02192 in Executive Session on 10 February 
2016 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	 , Panel Chair
	 , Member
	 , Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 May 2015, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSIPV, dated 9 October 2015, 
			  w/atch.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 13 November 2015.