RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-00304
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His narrative reason for separation (Failure to complete a course
of instruction) and corresponding separation code (JHF) be
changed to reflect reduction in strength.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The narrative reason for separation listed on his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, fails to
take into account the extenuating circumstances for his honorable
discharge, i.e., the ongoing reduction in strength, the timing of
the reclassification board, the Air Forces refusal of appeals,
and the nature of the screening program from which he was
eliminated.
The Air Force misplaced his reclassification paperwork and he had
to resubmit it numerous times. Ultimately, he ended up meeting a
late board for the fiscal year which resulted in a high
percentage of non-reclassified officers. These numbers were not
based upon merit, but rather a downsizing in numbers to meet
force strength requirements.
He was not allowed to appeal due to the Air Forces blanket and
rigid refusal of any appeals of these boards decisions.
Although reclassification was initiated due to the results of the
Initial Flight Screening Program, he was separated from the
service due to the reduction in strength.
In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal
statement, and a copy of AF Form 77, Letter of Evaluation.
The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 31 Mar 10, the applicant entered active duty in the grade of
second lieutenant, as a pilot trainee.
On 12 Jul 10, the applicants military training officer
recommended he be eliminated from training for failure to meet
proficiency standards, specifically for flying deficiencies.
His commander recommended elimination from the program, and
stated although he was unable to complete the program, he felt
the applicant would be a strong asset to the United States Air
Force.
On 27 Dec 10, the applicant was honorably discharged from the Air
Force for Failure to complete a course of instruction.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSIP makes no recommendation. DPSIP states the applicant
was eliminated from Initial Flight Screening for flying
deficiency on 3 Aug 10. On 22 Sep 10, an Initial Skills Training
(IST) elimination package was presented to the reclassification
panel, and the applicant was not selected for reclassification
and was subsequently discharged.
The complete DPSIP evaluation is at Exhibit B.
AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial. DPSOS states the applicants
separation code and narrative reason for separation were properly
established based upon his elimination from training. DPSOS
found no evidence of an error or injustice in the establishment
of his narrative reason for separation and separation code.
The applicant was discharged in accordance with AFI 36-3207, Separating Commissioned Officers, Air Force Guidance Memorandum,
1.1; it authorizes the Air Force to discharge probationary
officers when they do not complete initial skills training and
there is no requirement for the officers continued service. The
applicant was eliminated from Initial Flight Screening for flying
deficiency on 3 Aug 10. He was subsequently recommended for
discharge by the IST panel which convened on 22 Sep 10.
The complete DPSOS evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 9 Sep 11, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded
to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. To date,
a response has not been received (Exhibit D).
_________________________________________________________________
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. 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 office of primary responsibility (DPSIP) and
adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that 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 relief sought in this
application.
_________________________________________________________________
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 Docket Number
BC-2011-00304 in Executive Session on 13 Oct 11, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 14 Jan 10(sic), w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSIP, dated 1 Jan 11(sic).
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 22 Aug 11, w/atch.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Sep 11.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC 2012 04176
On 16 Apr 10, the applicants commander approved the squadron commanders recommendation. He had several delays in beginning his training due to a DUI, a disciplinary issue, and a pending waiver request for an alcohol problem. His initial elimination occurred when all officers eliminated from IST were reclassified regardless of the Air Force requirements and prior to the institution of the current Initial Skills Training (IST) Reclassification Panel process. Also, he believes that he...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-02175
The applicant elected to DOR and requested reclassification, which was considered by a panel of five senior officers. Based on the Air Force requirements, the applicants skills, education, desires, and his commanders recommendation, the panel determined his reclassification was not in the best interest of the Air Force. The complete JA evaluation is at Exhibit F. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicants...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04388
The recoupment of his Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps (AFROTC) scholarship be waived. In addition, the panel considered recoupment of the pro-rata portion of his AFROTC scholarship associated with the unserved portion of his active duty service commitment (ADSC) associated with the scholarship. He did not file an appeal through the Air Force Remissions Board because his notification for his involuntary discharge indicated he should appeal through the AFBCMR.
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-00325
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force at Exhibits B, C, D, and E. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIP recommends denial. JA states that the first and only notice the applicant received that the Air Force intended to seek recoupment of the pro-rata cost of his USAFA education was the letter from AFPC/CC, dated 26 April 2010,...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-01564
He was given an honorable characterization of service with a separation code of JHF and narrative reason of Failure to Complete a Course of Instruction. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In an undated advisory opinion, AFPC/DPSIP opines that based on their review, they found no problems with the applicants consideration by the Initial Skills Training (IST) panel and that the decision to recoup a pro-rated educational assistance...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05744
DPSI recommends the Board direct the applicants record be corrected to show that any and all references to his medical condition and the withholding of information about his medical condition be removed from paragraph 3B and 3C of the updated Training Eliminee letter received by AFPC/DPSIP on 6 Nov 12 and Section 4 of the AETC Form 125A, Record of Administrative Action, dated 27 Apr 12. Although the OPR recommends the applicants record be considered for reclassification and retention by...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00382
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-00382 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO IN THE MATTER OF: ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: She be reclassified into a Regular Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) like other members who met the Initial Skills Training (IST) board. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05646
On 14 Feb 13, after self-eliminating from pilot training, an Officer Initial Skills Training (IST) Reclassification Panel recommended the applicant be discharged from the Air Force, and that he repay $148,938 for the unserved portion of the active duty service commitment (ADSC) he incurred due to his Air Force Academy scholarship. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR),...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03316
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. A panel of senior officers at the Air Force Personnel Center reviews all initial skills training elimination reclassification applications and recommends reclassification or discharge based upon Air Force requirements, commander recommendations, and officer skills and desires. The complete HQ AFPC/DPSIP evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2010-03242
The Squadron Commander advised him that she would be recommending his separation from the Air Force. After thoroughly conducting our independent review of the evidence of record, to include the responses to the applicant’s two separate IG complaints, and noting his contentions, we are not persuaded that he was discharged based on his permanent PRP decertification. Contrary to the applicant’s assertion, the decision to discharge him was based on a force management decision rendered by the...