RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-00325 

COUNSEL: 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

1. His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from 
Active Duty, be corrected: 

 

a. In Block 19a, Mailing Address After Separation, to read, 
1979 Bengal View Drive, Pocatello, ID 83201” rather than “2640 
Holman Court, Colorado Springs, CO 80919.” 

 

b. In Block 19b, Nearest Relative, to read “Steven Cowles, 
Father, 2640 Holman Court, Colorado Springs, CO 80919” rather 
than “No Name Provided, 605 Leigh Dr Apt F64, Columbus, MS 
30705.” 

 

c. In Block 23, Type of Separation, to read “Involuntary 
Discharge” rather than “Resignation.” 

 

d. In Block 26, Separation Code, to read “JCC” (Reduction in 
Force), rather than “JHF” (Failure to Complete Course of 
Instruction). 

 

e. In Block 28, Narrative Reason for Separation, to read 
“Strength Adjustment” rather than “Failure to Complete Course of 
Instruction.” 

 

2. His debt indicated by the 29 April 2010 Notification of 
Assessment of Recoupment Costs be vacated and removed. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

There are serious errors as to the reasons and nature of his 
separation from the Air Force. While in pilot screening, it was 
discovered that he lacked the multi-task ability to control an 
aircraft safely. At the strong urging of his instructor pilots, 
he requested reclassification to any Air Force Specialty Code 
(AFSC) not involving flying. He was sent to a reclassification 
board that ultimately recommended he be discharged, apparently to 
help solve an Air Force end-strength limitation problem. He was 
issued a DD Form 214 in absentia that wrongfully reflected that 
he had voluntarily resigned. He was at all times ready, willing, 
and able to serve; however, after his discharge, he was served 
with a collection letter that added over $37,000 to the 
$133,367.88 debt for his United States Air Force Academy (USAFA) 
education. This was in derogation of both the contract he signed 


when he entered into the USAFA in 2005 and the than-extant 
provisions of the applicable law (Title 10, United States Code, 
Section 2005) both of which provided for reimbursement where the 
cadet failed to complete his active duty service commitment 
"voluntarily or because of misconduct.” At the same time he made 
application to the AFBCMR to consider the circumstances of his 
case, he applied to the DFAS for a waiver and/or suspension of 
collection efforts while his case was considered; however, DFAS 
did not grant his request. He is now an unemployed former second 
lieutenant who is expected to pay $170,000 in not less than three 
years, plus continuing interest and penalties. Five thousand 
dollars per month payment is simply impossible for him to pay. 
He now has a terrible credit rating, no ability to go back to 
school, purchase a house, or in many cases even to rent a 
dwelling. The irony is that he wants to be on active duty and 
wants to pay back the taxpayer investment in him by serving his 
country. 

 

In addition, there was no investigating officer (IO) appointed to 
determine the facts of his case or the validity of the dispute 
and any debt obligation, as required by law and the Officer 
Training Eliminee Recoupment Statement that he signed. 

 

In support of his appeal, the applicant’s counsel submits two 
statements; a copy of his DD Form 214; a copy of his USAFA Form 
0-205, Record of Acceptance, Obligation, Reimbursement, and Oath 
of Allegiance; a copy of a 14th Operations Support Squadron 
Commander’s recommendation letter; a personal statement; a copy 
of his Officer Initial Skills Training Eliminee Acknowledgment 
and Indication of Choice; an Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC) 
News Article; an AF/A1 Guidance Memorandum to Air Force 
Instruction 36-3207, Separating Commission Officers, Chapter 3; 
an electronic communication; a copy of his Officer Training 
Eliminee Recoupment Statement; an AFPC memorandum concerning his 
Initial Skills Training (IST) Reclassification/Discharge Panel; 
and the DFAS Letter of Indebtedness. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

While attending the USAFA, the applicant volunteered and was 
classified to fill an Air Force requirement as a pilot. He 
graduated, was brought onto active duty effective 27 May 2009, 
and sent to undergraduate pilot training to fulfill the 
requirement. Subsequently, he voluntarily withdrew from pilot 
training. He requested consideration for reclassification and 
was considered by a panel of officers at the AFPC for that 
purpose on 15 April 2010. The panel of officers denied his 
request for reclassification and recommended he be discharged 
from active duty and for reimbursement of the pro-rata share of 
the amount expended on his USAFA educational assistance. The 


applicant was honorably discharged effective 4 June 2010 after 
serving one year and eight days on active duty. 

 

The applicant and his counsel was notified by the AFBCMR on 
29 September 2011 that his case was being administratively closed 
until an investigation by an AFPC appointed IO could be completed 
and that the applicant had exhausted his administrative remedies. 

 

On 1 November 2011, the AFPC Commander notified the applicant 
that after reviewing the IO report, he affirmed his previous 
decision to recoup the unearned portion of the cost of the 
applicant’s USAFA education in the amount of $113,637.46. 

 

On 7 December 2011 after completion of the investigation, the 
applicant’s counsel requested that the AFBCMR resume its 
consideration of his client’s application (See Exhibit I). 

 

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. DPSIP states that Title 10, United 
States Code, Section 2005, requires recoupment of the pro-rata 
share of unserved portion of a member’s active duty service 
commitment (ADSC) associated with his USAFA scholarship. If the 
applicant’s inability to complete the ADSC was deemed not within 
his control, the Secretary of the Air Force has the legal 
authority to waive recoupment. However, the applicant’s 
withdrawal from training was voluntary and thus, completely 
within his control. As a result he was directed to repay the 
pro-rata share of the unserved ADSC associated with his 
scholarship. It is DPSIP’s opinion that the applicant’s DD Form 
214 accurately reflects the reason for his discharge and should 
not be further altered. In addition, his elimination from 
training and resulting inability to fulfill his ADSC was 
completely within his control. Therefore, his requirement to 
repay the government the pro-rata share of his unserved ADSC 
should remain in effect in accordance with Title 10, USC, Section 
2005. 

 

A complete copy of the DPSIP evaluation is at Exhibit B. 

 

AFPC/JA recommends the applicant be offered the investigation to 
which he was entitled. JA states they agree that the failure to 
have an IO appointed was an error. 

 

JA indicates that Title 10, USC, Section 2005, as it was when the 
applicant entered the USAFA, states “In any case in which the 
Secretary concerned determines that a person who entered into an 
agreement under this section failed to complete the period of 
active duty specified in the agreement (or failed to fulfill any 


other term or condition prescribed in the agreement) and, by 
reason of the provision of the agreement required under 
subsection (a)(3), may owe a debt to the United States and in 
which that person disputed that such a debt is owed, the 
Secretary shall designate a member of the armed forces or a 
civilian employee under the jurisdiction of the Secretary to 
investigate the facts of the case and hear evidence presented by 
the person who may owe the debt and other parties, as 
appropriate, in order to determine the validity of the debt. 
That official shall report the official findings and 
recommendations to the Secretary concerned. If the justification 
for the debt investigated includes an allegation of misconduct, 
the investigating official shall state in the report the 
official’s assessment as to whether the individual behavior that 
resulted in the separation of the person who may owe the debt 
qualifies as misconduct under subsection (a)(3).” 

 

In addition, the Officer Training Eliminee Recoupment Statement 
signed by the applicant on 14 April 2010 contained the following 
statement: I understand that if I dispute the indebtedness for 
educational assistance, [the approving authority for the 
discharge] will appoint an officer (or a civilian employee in GS-
9 or above) to investigate the facts of the case, including 
receiving evidence from the member, in order to determine the 
validity of the dispute and any other obligation. The 
investigating officer will provide findings and recommendations 
to the discharge authority, which will forward the report of 
inquiry, together with his/her recommendation concerning 
recoupment, to the Secretary of the Air Force for decision. 

 

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, which also informed him that he was not selected 
for reclassification and would be discharged. The letter also 
informed the applicant of his right to dispute the recoupment 
decision through the AFBCMR. 

 

It is JA’s opinion that the applicant was denied a substantial 
right provided by statute to be notified of the service’s intent 
to recoup, to dispute that recoupment decision, to have an IO 
appointed to investigate the case and determine the validity of 
the dispute and any other debt obligations, and to present 
evidence to that IO as part of his/her investigation. Moreover, 
they do not believe that an application to the AFBCMR necessarily 
fulfills that statutory right. 

 

As noted by the applicant’s counsel, Title 10, USC, Section 630, 
provides the service’s broad authority to discharge any 
probationary officer (less than six years service) under 
regulations provided by the Secretary of Defense. Department of 
Defense Instruction (DoDI) 1332.20, paragraph 4(d) represents one 
such regulatory implementation of this authority. That paragraph 
provides that in accordance with Title 10, USC, Section 630, 
secretaries of the military service may discharge officers on the 


Active Duty List (ADL) or the Reserve Active Status List (RASL) 
who have fewer than six years commissioned service when there is 
a need “to reduce the number of officers in that service to meet 
budgetary of force size requirements. “That authority has been 
implemented in the Air Force in Air Force Guidance Memorandum 1 
to Air Force Instruction 36-3207, signed by AF/A1 on behalf of 
the Secretary of the Air Force (SECAF). The Guidance memorandum 
provides that “Pursuant to Title 10, USC, Section 630, and DoDI 
1332.20, paragraph 4(d), SECAF or delegee, may voluntarily 
separate probationary officers when they do not complete initial 
skills training and there is no requirement for the officer’s 
continued service.” The legality of that authority has recently 
been upheld in an opinion issued by the General Counsel of the 
Air Force (SAF/GC). In this regard, they have provided a copy of 
the SAF/GCM opinion, dated 23 June 2011, as an attachment to 
their evaluation. 

 

A complete copy of the JA evaluation, with attachment, is at 
Exhibit C. 

 

AFPC/DPSOY recommends denying the applicant’s request to 
correct/change Block 19a/b, and Block 21 (Other advisories will 
address the other Blocks). DPSOY states that in accordance with 
Air Force Instruction 36-3202, Separation Documents, and Table 4, 
the mailing address in Block 19a/b is used to ensure the member 
receives their DD Form 214 when mailed. This Block does not 
affect any benefits and is of administrative concern only. 
Members are expected to provide this information at the time of 
separation to not delay receipt of the form. If not provided, 
they use the address from the Military Personnel System (MilPDS). 
The comment “Member is not available to sign” in Block 21, is 
consistent with the electronic form they use. The only other 
drop down option is “Member refused to sign.” The production of 
DD Forms 214 is mainly located at AFPC; therefore, their 
customers are not present when the form is accomplished. The 
applicant’s DD Form 214 is consistent with the procedural and 
substantive requirements of instruction; MilPDS; and AF Form 100, Request and Authorization for Separation. Their office will 
publish and provide the applicant with a corrected copy of his DD 
Form 214/215 to reflect any other corrections directed by the 
AFBCMR. If a new form has to be created (any blocks 23-29), they 
will ensure the address is changed to the current address to 
ensure the applicant receives it in the mail. Block 21 will 
always remain “Member not available to sign.” 

 

A complete copy of the DPSOY evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

DFAS-IN recommends denial. DFAS states that by the virtue of the 
statements the applicant signed, he was willing to accept the 
possibility that the requirement to repay the value of the 
education bestowed upon him was his responsibility. Whether or 
not the discharge is voluntary is irrelevant to the fact the Air 
Force Reclassification/Discharge Panel did not select him for 
reclassification and he was discharged under honorable 


conditions. The education he received is not recouped, only the 
cost associated. 

 

A complete copy of the DFAS-IN evaluation is at Exhibit E. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

COUNSEL'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: 

 

They concur with the SAF/GCM opinion, provided with the AFPC/JA 
evaluation, as it supports his client’s argument and repudiates 
that of AFPC/JA. It states that “We are of the opinion that [the 
amendment to Air Force Instruction 36-3207 authorizing separation 
of officers who do not complete initial skills training] provides 
an appropriate legal basis for the involuntary separation of 
probationary officers when they do not complete initial skills 
training and there is no need for the officer’s continued 
service.” His client never contended otherwise and his position 
wholly comports with that of SAF/GCM. The SAF/GCM opinion could 
not be clearer, and offers the complete answer to what the Board 
needs to know to rule for his client. In fact, it is evident 
that SAF/GCM’s opinion came in response to a query from AFPC/JA 
itself, possibly in connection with this case. The statutory 
basis for his client’s separation, cited by AFPC/JA and explained 
by SAF/GCM, was for “involuntary” separation. Involuntary 
separation other than for misconduct does not authorize 
recoupment action. 

 

The counsel’s complete rebuttal is at Exhibit G. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

SAF/GCM does not provide a recommendation. However, in their 
legal opinion, they indicate that in cases where an applicant has 
self-eliminated from IST for initial flight training, followed by 
a request for reclassification and subsequent involuntary 
separation by the IST Reclassification/Discharge panel, the Board 
must look at the totality of the circumstances to determine 
whether an officer’s separation was voluntary in the sense that 
it was the foreseeable consequences of deliberate and volitional 
behavior. This includes a chosen course of conduct that the 
officer knows will, or could have reasonably foreseen could, 
produce a separation. While an officer may assert he wishes to 
serve, if the officer’s volitional conduct could at the time of 
his or her conduct, have foreseeably led to separation, the Board 
might still conclude – for the purpose of 10 USC, Section 2005 
(a)(3) – that the officer voluntarily failed to complete the 
period of active duty specified in the agreement. If the Board 
reaches such a determination, it should clearly articulate the 
reasons for doing so. 

 

GCM further states, if the Board finds the recoupment standard in 
10 USC, Section 2005 has been met, it should also consider 


whether recoupment should be waived as a matter of equity. In 
making this determination, the Board should consider whether 
there were exceptional factors in the officer’s behalf related to 
his or her self-elimination from training – such as major medical 
difficulties, extraordinary difficulty meeting training standards 
despite diligent effort, or genuine safety concerns. 

 

A complete copy of the GCM evaluation, dated 22 February 2012, is 
at Exhibit J. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

COUNSEL'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: 

 

The record could not be clearer that not only did his client have 
no expectation that his decision to seek a career in the Air 
Force in some other field other than pilot would result in his 
discharge, he did everything possible to stay in the Air Force. 
Not only did he think that self-eliminating from Initial Flight 
Screening (IFS) would lead to his separation, he was advised that 
it would improve his chances for reclassification. Previous to 
his particular IST, officers were not separated, but were 
reclassified. It was only because the Air Force found itself in 
a manpower crunch that he was separated and the determinative 
factor turned out to be the fact that he did not have a technical 
degree, something he could not possibly have known. His decision 
to leave IFS was one justifiably pressed upon him by his 
instructors and by his own sense that it was unfair to others who 
shared the air with him, to say nothing of the additional cost 
if, as his instructors made it clear, he subsequently washed out. 

 

The SAF/GCM opinion states that even if the Board were to decide 
that his client had voluntarily left the Air Force, the question 
of equity remains. The Board is entitled to correct an injustice 
even where there is no legal error. It is perhaps convenient for 
AFPC to balance its end-strength books by involuntarily 
separating a USAFA graduate who had already demonstrated great 
potential for service. It is also legal for it to do so, even 
though it left a promising USAFA graduate out of a career and a 
job he had prepared for, but the punitive reality of the 
consequences of then requiring repayment of $131,000 in just 
three years should not go unappreciated by a Board charged to 
correct injustices. 

 

The counsel’s complete rebuttal is at Exhibit L. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 


THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

 

1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 
law or regulations. 

 

2. The application was timely filed. 

 

3. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of an injustice. After a thorough 
review of the evidence presented, we find no error in the 
applicant’s discharge as it was done in accordance with 
established Air Force policy and procedures; however, we have 
determined exceptional circumstances existed in this case. The 
applicant discovered while attending IST that he did not possess 
the comprehensive skill-set to become a pilot. Although he 
received satisfactory marks on academic tests; his ability to 
take off or land the aircraft, divide his attention between 
monitoring the aircraft’s Global Positioning System (GPS) and 
instruments, piloting the aircraft, and maintaining ground 
communications were unsuccessful. It is evident that he tried to 
the best of his ability to master these challenges; however, at 
the same time, it appears he was counseled by his Initial Flight 
Screening (IFS) instructors that it was better to self-eliminate 
rather than wash out and possibly endanger himself, his 
classmates, and instructors. We recognize the applicant 
acknowledged that if he voluntarily failed to fulfill any term or 
condition prescribed by SECAF, he would reimburse the government 
for the percentage cost of his education equal to the period of 
active duty he failed to complete. However, in our view, a 
reasonable expectation was created that he would be able to 
fulfill his active duty service in another career area. All of 
the evidence available to us leads us to believe he was willing 
to fulfill his active duty service commitment and that he relied 
upon the advice given to him by his superiors despite having to 
sign the contract. We find it ironic that had the applicant 
continued in training and “washed out,” he would not have 
incurred the contested debt. In looking at all aspects of this 
case, we believe on balance, the applicant’s action to self-
eliminate from UPT may have saved the government a greater sum 
than what he has been directed to repay. Based on the 
information above, we believe there are extraordinary 
circumstances that as a matter of equity and justice, supports 
waiving repayment of the contested debt for the applicant’s 
education costs. 

 

4. We note the applicant requests his narrative reason for 
separation and separation code be changed to reflect “Strength 
Adjustment,” and that his voluntary separation be changed to 
reflect “Involuntary Discharge.” Although there is no evidence 
presented to indicate the Air Force made an error in these 
entries, we believe in the interest of justice that his narrative 
reason for separation, separation code, and type of separation be 
changed to “Secretarial Authority,” “JFF,” and “Involuntary 
Discharge” respectively. In regard to the applicants’ remaining 
request to correct his mailing address after separation and the 


nearest relative, we note the office of primary responsibility 
indicates these requests do not affect any benefits and are of 
administrative concern only. They state that if the DD Form 214 
will need to be reaccomplished to reflect the applicant’s 
discharge characterization, the changing of the addresses are 
harmless and should be accomplished. Therefore, based on the 
aforementioned, we are of the opinion that in order to provide 
the applicant fair and equitable relief, his records should be 
corrected as indicated below. 

 

5. 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 issues involved. 
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: 

 

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force 
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that: 

 

 a. At the time of his discharge on 4 June 2010, the Secretary 
of the Air Force found that under the particular circumstances of 
his case, his resignation was not voluntary within the meaning of 
Title 10, United States Code, Section 2005, and that accordingly, 
no debt was established to reimburse the United States for his 
cost of his education at the Air Force Academy. 

 

 b. His DD Form 214 be corrected as follows: 

 

 1. In Block 19a, Mailing Address After Separation, to 
reflect “1979 Bengal View Drive, Pocatello, ID 83201” rather than 
“2640 Holman Court, Colorado Springs, CO 80919.” 

 

 2. In Block 19b, Nearest Relative, to reflect “Steven 
Cowles, Father, 2640 Holman Court, Colorado springs, CO 80919” 
rather than “No Name Provided, 605 Leigh Dr Apt F64, Columbus, MS 
30705.” 

 

 3. In Block 23, Type of Separation, to reflect 
“Involuntary Discharge” rather than “Resignation.” 

 

 4. In Block 26, Separation Code, to reflect “JFF” rather 
than “JHF.” 

 

 5. In Block 28, Narrative Reason for Separation, to 
reflect “Secretarial Authority” rather than “Failure to Complete 
Course of Instruction.” 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2011-00325 in Executive Session on 21 August 2012, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 


 

 , Vice Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The 
following documentary evidence for AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2011-
00325 was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 21 Jan 11, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSIP, dated 28 Feb 11. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 11 Jul 11, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOY, dated 4 Aug 11. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, DFAS-IN, not dated. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Sep 11. 

 Exhibit G. Letter, Counsel, dated 2 Sep 11. 

 Exhibit H. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 29 Sep 11. 

 Exhibit I. Letter, Counsel, dated 7 Dec 11, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit J. Letter, SAF/GCM, dated 22 Feb 12. 

 Exhibit K. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 23 Feb 12. 

 Exhibit L. Letter, Counsel, dated 20 Mar 12. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Vice Chair