The Honorable Representative/Senator First Last Name

District # in the State of [State]

Mailing Address
City, State Zip Code

Dear Representative/Senator First Last,

Introduction and Summary:

My name is Rank First and Last, an Active Duty Army Aviation Officer with
nearly # years of honorable service to this great nation and currently residing in your
Congressional District. I am writing today to request an inquiry into the U.S. Army’s
Human Resources Command (HRC) due to significant mismanagement relating to the
enforcement of Active-Duty Service Obligations (ADSOs) for Army Aviation Officers.
This issue affects not only myself but the 60 additional Aviation Officers who were
commissioned between 2015-2020 and have co-signed below, plus numerous other
Aviation Officers who have yet to be notified by HRC. These co-signing Officers are
also writing their congressional representative at this time.
Aviation Officers were under the belief that they had a specific service
requirement, generally 7.5 to 8 years from commissioning. Demonstrated through the
enclosures at the end of this letter, you will see this belief was reinforced through the
published guidance of HRC Career Managers, Aviation Branch Representatives at our
commissioning sources, official HRC correspondence and briefings, as well as the
countless Aviation Officers that successfully separated from Active-Duty service up until
the Fall of 2022. Beginning this past Fall, without explanation or forewarning, HRC
began to deny Aviation Officer’s Release from Active Duty (REFRAD) claiming a new
legal interpretation of our service contract would require an additional service
requirement of as much as three years, to include the possibility of further deployments
and permanent changes of station. This abrupt change in policy is in direct
contradiction with the Army regulation that governs officer ADSOs, U.S. Code, and was
not done in good faith with the long-standing precedent set between HRC and service
members. Above all else, this is a violation of trust and I did not knowingly agree to
these terms in my original service contract. Ultimately, the potential impact of three
additional and unplanned years of service has created immense and undue hardship to
my family and countless others.

Background:

Army Cadets that attend Army ROTC with a full-scholarship generally incur a
four-year commissioning ADSO and those that attend the United States Military
Academy (USMA) generally incur a five-year commissioning ADSO. As part of the
Career Satisfaction Program, Cadets are presented the option of signing a branch of
choice active duty service obligation (BRADSO). The BRADSO adds three years to the
commissioning service obligation (4 years for ROTC, 5 for USMA) in exchange for
1
commissioning in their branch of choice. Additionally, upon commissioning, Army
Aviators receive initial orders to Fort Rucker, AL which detail the extent of their service
contract. Nowhere in these initial orders was there an explanation of this additional
service time.
Separately, Army Aviators incur a 6 year ADSO for attending flight school. This
ADSO begins upon completion of flight school (about 1.5 years in duration), and is
served concurrently to the commissioning ADSO. Until recently, this was also served
concurrently to the BRADSO.

Army Regulation and Our BRADSO:

The Army Regulation that governs Officer Active Duty Service Obligations is AR
350-100. The main source of contention is Paragraph 3-5(e) which states:

“ADSOs incurred under these or similar incentive programs will be served

consecutively after the officer’s commission ADSO (paragraph 2–2) and concurrently
with any other nonstatutory ADSO. The ADSO will begin on the day after the officer’s
initial ADSO is completed. Completion of the commission ADSO will satisfy the terms of
the cadet’s service agreement. Accordingly, scholarship cadets (ROTC or USMA) would
not be subject to reimbursement for a pro-rata share of the cost of their undergraduate
education if they fail to serve the additional ADSO incurred pursuant to these incentive
programs.”

Since the inception of the Career Satisfaction Program, the Army has interpreted
this as meaning the BRADSO (3 years) is applied consecutive to the USMA/ROTC
requirement (5/4 years, respectively) and runs concurrently with the flight school ADSO
(6 years AFTER the end of flight school.)
HRC has since changed their interpretation to the BRADSO being applied
consecutively to the flight school ADSO. While we have yet to receive an official update
from the Aviation Branch at HRC, what they have told us centers on the first sentence of
AR 350-100 (3-5)(e). HRC claims that since the flight school ADSO is statutorily defined
(10 U.S.C. § 653(a)), and that AR 350-100 (3-5)(e) could imply that it be served
consecutively after the flight school ADSO, that it must be so. However, that is not what
the regulation states. Even if that were what the regulation implies, that would directly
contradict the actual language stating the ADSO is served after the officer’s
commissioning ADSO.
When determining which interpretation is correct, we must look to the plain
language of the regulation. Here, the plain language states that the BRADSO is served
consecutively after the officer’s commissioning ADSO, trumping any other implied
interpretation because it is written in plain language. If the Army wanted the BRADSO to
be served consecutively to the flight school ADSO, the regulation should state that
explicitly. Since it does not, the plain language of the regulation should govern the
outcome.

2
Impact and Injustice:

The fundamental argument is this: Army Aviators have been misled by HRC, the
USMA and ROTC Aviation Branch Representatives, and our Career Managers on the
exact length of our service contract. All sources of information have reiterated countless
times in official correspondence, on HRC informational briefs, and on the HRC website
itself, that our BRADSO would be served concurrently to our Aviation ADSO.
Statements like these were repeated across USMA and many ROTC departments to
countless Cadets that joined Army Aviation with an understanding that it would be about
a 7.5 to 8 year commitment (depending on commissioning source.) My fellow Army
Aviators who have co-signed this letter below can corroborate the understanding of their
contract and the statements and promises mentioned above.
The greatest injustice is the sudden departure from years of precedent of
releasing Aviation Officers with a BRADSO per the initial timeline. As an Aviation Officer
near the end of my understood service obligation, this impacts my family and I the most
as I am attempting to make the transition to civilian life. While I have cherished my time
as a member of this incredible Army, I am looking forward to a civilian career that may
now be upended due to the gross mismanagement of my Active Duty Service
Obligation. I am ready and willing to provide any and all documentation mentioned in
the above complaint and look forward to your response.

Respectfully,

FIRST MI. LAST

CPT, AV
Commanding (if applicable)

4
Enclosure 2: Video, Mr. Kevin Wyatt (LT AV Branch Tech) Virtual Breakout Brief
August 2020
Enclosure 4: Email Correspondence to the same AV Officer from
Branch Manager September 2022 and February 2023