RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-02175 

 COUNSEL: 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

1. The decision of the Initial Skill Training (IST) 
Reclassification Panel be rescinded and removed from his records. 

 

2. He be reinstated on active duty. 

 

3. The recoupment of his pro-rata share to the unserved active 
duty service commitment (ADSC) associated with his USAF Academy 
(USAFA) Scholarship be waived. 

 

4. Or in the alternate, the reason for his discharge be changed 
to Secretarial Authority if he is not reinstated. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

On 12 April 2010, he notified his instructor pilot that he had 
elected to drop on request (DOR) from the Joint Specialized 
Undergraduate Pilot Training (JSUPT). He also informed his 
flight commander of his DOR election. 

 

On 13 April 2010, a new Air Force instruction was implemented, 
requiring all eliminees from IST be considered for 
reclassification or discharge. His record was above average as 
documented by his evaluations and flight records. 

 

On 15 April 2010, the 84th Flying Squadron commander completed a 
training review report on him. In that report, the commander 
stated he displayed above average qualities in professionalism, 
military bearing and behavior, as well as maturity. However, 
fourteen days later, his description turned negative and he was 
labeled a quitter with below average qualities. Despite making 
the Dean’s List at the USAFA, earning a masters’ degree and 
having a record of success, he was selected for separation and 
recoupment of the education assistance he received. His record 
was arbitrarily ignored because a fellow USAFA graduate did not 
like that he was honest enough to admit he was not suited to be a 
pilot. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant’s counsel provides a 
legal brief. 

 

 

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


 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

On 28 May 2008, the applicant graduated from the USAFA and was 
commissioned as a second lieutenant (2Lt) in the US Air Force. 
He attended JSUPT from 12 January to 15 April 2010. 

 

On 15 April 2010, the applicant notified the flying training 
squadron commander by letter that he elected to DOR from JSUPT. 
The primary reasons for his decision were his lack of passion for 
flying inhibited the capacity to dedicate himself to training and 
the mission, and his selection of the pilot Air Force Specialty 
Code (AFSC) was driven by improper rationale and thought process. 

 

In the training review report to the 47th Operations Group 
commander, the squadron commander recommended the applicant be 
eliminated from JSUPT and retained in the Air Force and be 
considered for technical training or duty in a non-rated 
operations assignment. 

 

On 19 April 2010, the applicant signed and acknowledged he may be 
subject to recoupment of a portion of the education assistance, 
special pay, or bonus money received. 

 

On 29 April 2010, an AF IMT 475, Education/Training Report was 
prepared and signed by the squadron commander documenting the 
applicant was eliminated due to his election to DOR. In a 
Commander’s Assessment and Retention Recommendation, the squadron 
commander suggested the applicant be separated from the Air Force 
because he displayed slightly below average officership qualities 
during his time at Laughlin Air Force Base. 

 

On 10 May 2010, the IST Reclassification Panel did not consider 
the applicant for reclassification and recommended he be 
separated with an honorable discharge. 

 

On 18 May 2010, AFPC/CC notified the applicant on the results of 
the IST Reclassification/Discharge Panel. AFPC/CC stated the 
applicant had to reimburse the United States government for the 
unserved portion of the amount expended on his USAFA Education 
Assistance. 

 

On 20 June 2010, the applicant was discharged from the Air Force 
under the provisions of AFI 36-112, Line Officer Initial Skills 
Training Reclassification Procedures, for Failure to Complete a 
Course of Instruction, with an honorable discharge. He served 
2 years and 23 days of total active duty. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 


AFPC/DPSIP recommends denial of his request for waiver of 
recoupment. DPSIP states the applicant voluntarily withdrew from 
his IST course, rendering his ability to fulfill the requirement 
for which he was assessed impossible. The Line Officer Initial 
Skills Reclassification panel and the discharge authority deemed 
he was in direct control of his inability to fulfill his ADSC. 
His requirement to repay the pro-rata share of his unserved ADSC 
should remain in effect in accordance with Title 10 USC, Section 
2005. 

 

The applicant was classified to fill an Air Force requirement as 
a pilot. He graduated and was brought onto active duty and sent 
to undergraduate pilot training to fulfill that requirement. The 
applicant elected to DOR and requested reclassification, which 
was considered by a panel of five senior officers. The review 
was not arbitrary; rather, it was designed to meet Air Force 
reclassification requirements. Based on the Air Force 
requirements, the applicant’s skills, education, desires, and his 
commander’s recommendation, the panel determined his 
reclassification was not in the best interest of the Air Force. 

 

In an attempt to highlight an inequity in the recoupment process, 
he references recent force management initiatives that encourage 
USAFA graduates to voluntarily separate after fulfilling three of 
their five-year ADSC. On 25 March 2010, the Secretary of the Air 
Force (SecAF) announced an expanded force management program, 
which included a waiver of up to two years of the 5-years ADSC 
associated with the USAFA scholarship. The program was limited 
to AFCSs that were overmanned at the time of the announcement. 
The program was not open to pilots as these AFSCs are 
historically undermanned. In addition, eligibility was limited 
to officers who already completed IST. Because of his self-
elimination from IST and the fact he was accessed to active duty 
to fill a pilot requirement, he was never eligible for the 
program. 

 

The DPSIP complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial of his request for waiver of 
recoupment and concurs with DPSIP. DPSOS states the applicant’s 
elimination from training, and resulting inability to fulfill his 
ADSC was within his control. The requirement to repay the 
government the pro-rata share of his unserved ADSC should remain 
in effect IAW Title 10 USC, Section 2005. 

 

The applicant contends he should be exempt from the panel process 
because he submitted his DOR prior to the establishment of the 
Line Officer Initial Skills Reclassification panel procedures. 
On 12 April 2010, the SecAF established the Line Officer Initial 
Skills Training Reclassification panel to ensure the Air Force 
executes officer reclassification in a deliberate manner. The 
Secretarial authority to reclassify or discharge officers unable 
to complete initial skills training has not changed. The SecAF 
simply elected to establish a more formalized process to execute 
the program. The timing of the applicant’s DOR has no bearing on 


the Secretarial authority to discharge him in lieu of 
reclassification. 

 

He further contends he was effectively required to sign a 
recoupment statement. The statement is simply an acknowledgment 
that the possibility exists that he will be required to repay the 
pro-rata share of the unserved ADSC associated with his USAFA 
scholarship IAW Title 10 USC, Section 2005. 

 

The complete DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

AFPC/DPSIP recommends denial. DPSIP states a panel of five field 
grade officers reviewed the applicant’s elimination package and 
they determined he would be discharged. The panel considered all 
eliminees using the whole person concept and made the 
recommendation for discharge and recoupment of educational cost. 
AFPC/CC was the final approval authority and accepted the 
recommendation from the panel. 

 

The complete DPSIP evaluation is at Exhibit E. 

 

AFPC/JA recommends denial and concurs with the reasons expressed 
in all the advisories. JA states the applicant executed a Record 
of Acceptable, Obligation and Oath of Allegiance on 1 July 2004; 
Title 10, USC, section 2005 which states if he voluntarily, or 
because of misconduct, failed to complete that period of active 
duty or failed to fulfill any term or condition prescribed by the 
SecAF, he would as specified by the Air Force, reimburse the 
United States government for the percentage of his education 
costs equal to the period of active duty that he failed to 
complete. The applicant met a reclassification board pursuant to 
AFI 36-112 and was recommended for discharge from the Air Force 
and recoupment of the pro-rate share of the monies expended on 
his behalf pursuant to 10 USC 2005. The SecAF approved the 
recommendation and the applicant was discharged and ordered to 
pay over $128,000 in recoupment expenses. Officers like the 
applicant, who received financial assistance from the AFA by 
virtue of a contract signed before 1 April 2006, are subject to 
recoupment as a training eliminee if the first failure is 
determined to be within the applicant’s control, absent a 
Secretarial determination that recoupment would be contrary to a 
personnel policy or management objective, against equity and good 
conscience, or contrary to the best interest of the United 
States. 

 

With regards to the applicant’s belief that the outcome in his 
case was unfair; JA states the Board has authority to correct a 
record only upon the finding of an error or injustice. The 
advisories have already discussed that no errors occurred in the 
applicant’s case. Federal courts have consistently defined 
“injustice” within the meaning of 10 USC 1552 as that behavior or 
action that rises to a level that shocks the conscience. This is 
a tough standard that requires more than merely deciding that an 
action taken might be viewed as unfair. JA states the 
circumstances in this case clearly cannot be characterized as 
shocking the conscience. 


 

JA states the SecAF properly exercised his discretion and 
determined the basis for the applicant’s elimination was within 
his control and that recoupment was pursuant to a clearly 
established personnel policy. Moreover, under all the facts 
presented, recoupment was not contrary to equity and good 
conscience or the best interest of the Air Force. 

 

The applicant challenges the decision of the Air Force to 
separate him rather than reclassify him into another career 
field, characterizing it as being contrary to the evidence, 
arbitrary and ultimately unfair. JA disagrees and states the 
decision to discharge the applicant was in essence a force 
management decision made after careful evaluation of all the 
factors in the applicant’s record. Five disinterested senior 
officers, who by charter of the SecAF acted in the best interest 
of the Air Force, made the initial review and recommendation. 
There is no evidence in the case file that proves, or even 
suggests, that the Air Force officials responsible for the 
separation and recoupment decisions acted arbitrarily or abused 
their discretion. 

 

The complete JA evaluation is at Exhibit F. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The applicant’s counsel states that historically every pilot that 
initiated a DOR was allowed to move to another career field 
unless they engaged in misconduct or had an abysmal record. Had 
the applicant known there was a real possibility he would be 
removed from the Air Force, he would have continued in pilot 
training. While he was not the best pilot candidate, he was not 
failing when he initiated his DOR. The applicant realized it was 
better for the Air Force if he pursued another career field. He 
even volunteered to go directly to flying Unmanned Aerial 
Vehicles (UAVs) as a way to capitalize on the training he had 
already received. Further, given the applicant’s grades, his MBA 
and otherwise good record, he had no reason to believe he would 
be forced out of the Air Force. 

 

The unsubstantiated and unjust commander’s assessment and 
retention recommendation was the main reason the applicant was 
discharged rather than reclassified. In the training review 
letter, it states the applicant displayed above average qualities 
in professionalism, military bearing, behavior, and maturity 
during military training with the flying training squadron and 
recommended he be retained. As an officer with an engineering 
degree from the USAFA, the applicant should have received special 
consideration for reclassification. Given his otherwise excellent 
record, the negative commander’s assessment and retention 
recommendation appears to have unjustly impacted the decision to 
retain the applicant. Counsel notes that AFPC makes a point that 
the new instruction was to discontinue the practice of allowing 


overages in certain career fields. The applicant was not given 
special consideration. 

 

Counsel states the applicant’s request to DOR was initiated on 
12 April 2010 and should have been processed under the rules 
prior to the implementation of AFPCI 36-112 which allowed members 
to be reclassified. As an engineer with an excellent record, he 
should have been reclassified if in fact the instruction applied 
to him. 

 

The applicant’s counsel complete response is at Exhibit H. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 error or injustice warranting 
favorable action on the applicant's request. After reviewing the 
complete evidence of record, we are not persuaded by counsel's 
arguments that the applicant has been the victim of an error or 
that he has suffered an injustice. While the applicant's counsel 
argues that the main reason the applicant was discharged instead 
of being reclassified was the review by his commander, he has not 
presented sufficient evidence that those responsible for making 
these decisions acted arbitrarily or abused their discretionary 
authority. Although Counsel asserts that other pilots who have 
previously elected to DOR were allowed to move to another career 
field unless they engaged in misconduct or had an abysmal record, 
he has not provided sufficient evidence to show the applicant was 
treated differently than other pilots similarly situated. 
Further, Counsel argues that had the applicant known there was a 
real possibility he would have been removed from the Air Force, 
he would have continued in pilot training. He also states that 
when the applicant made his decision to DOR, he fully expected to 
be allowed to move to another position in the Air Force. 
However, by the applicant's own admission in the DOR 
Questionnaire (question 10), the applicant states "conversely, 
I've also considered the possible consequences of Dor-ing. I've 
considered that I most likely will not get the-classification of 
my choice, that I may get the needs of the Air Force or worse, 
that I may be discharged against my will. Although these 
consequences and uncertainties scare me, I still feel that those 
can't be reasons why I stick it out and become a half-hearted 
mediocre pilot". Consequently, Counsel's arguments are without 
merit and we find no basis to rescind or remove the IST 
Reclassification Panel's decision from the applicant’s records or 
to reinstate the applicant on active duty. Counsel makes several 
other contentions and they are duly noted; however, they have 
been sufficiently addressed by the Air Force OPR and we agree 
with their recommendations. Therefore, we adopt the rationale 


expressed as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has 
not been the victim of an error or injustice. Regarding the 
applicant’s request to change the reason for his discharge, in 
view of the circumstances, we find no basis to change it to 
Secretarial Authority. Therefore we conclude the applicant has 
failed to sustain his burden that he has been the victim of an 
error or injustice. In the absence of evidence to the contrary 
we find no basis to recommend the relief sough in this 
application. 

 

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 issue(s) 
involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably 
considered. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 

 

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that 
the application was denied without a personal appearance; and 
that 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-2010-02175 in Executive Session on 21 April 2011, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 Panel Chair 

 Member 

 Member 

 


The following documentary evidence pertaining Docket Number BC-
2010-02175 was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 16 Jun 10, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Record. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSIP, dated 6 Dec 10. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 10 Dec 10. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPSIP, undated. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 12 Jan 11. 

 Exhibit G. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Jan 11. 

 Exhibit H. Letter, Applicant’s counsel, dated 22 Feb 11, 

 w/atchs. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair