RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-01564 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

1. His Separation Program Designator (SPD) code be changed from 
“JHF,” “Failure to Meet Course Standards” due to the fact he 
voluntarily requested elimination from Undergraduate Pilot 
Training (UPT); Drop on Request (DOR). 

 

2. The debt established, approximately $112,000, for his United 
States Air Force Academy (USAFA) education be cancelled. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

1. Drop on Request is completely separate from any of the 
reasons used to determine failure to meet course standards. 
AETCI36-2205V4, paragraph 3.4.3, lists nine reasons that student 
pilots will be eliminated from UPT. 

 

2. The Air Force Form 63 “Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC), 
Acknowledgement Statement” pertaining to him states in Part 2, 
paragraph H, line 2, “That if I am voluntarily retired or 
separated, or if I am involuntarily separated because of 
misconduct, prior to completing the ADSC, I understand and agree 
that the Secretary of the Air Force or his designated 
representative may direct reimbursement.” He has provided 
supporting letters from his former squadron and flight commanders 
confirming that none of these circumstances are true. He desires 
to continue serving, but that chance has been taken away by 
influences beyond his control. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides his personal 
statement, DD Form 214 Certificate of Release or Discharge From 
Active Duty, AF IMT 100, Request and Authorization for 
Separation, AF Form 63, copies of documents from his personnel 
records, an extract of AETCI36-2205V4, letters of support, 
correspondence from the Defense Finance and Accounting Service 
(DFAS), and copy of a letter written to his Senator on the issue 
at hand. 

 

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


 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

According to available records, the applicant entered USAFA in 
the fall of 2005 and graduated in May 2009. He subsequently 
entered UPT on 19 February 2010 and self eliminated (DOR) on 
10 June 2010. On 22 September 2010, the applicant met an Initial 
Skills Training (IST) Reclassification panel pursuant to AFPCI 
36-112. The panel recommended the applicant be discharged from 
the Air Force, and that he reimburse the Government the pro rata 
share of his USAFA education costs for the unserved portion of 
his obligated active duty. The recommendation was approved by 
the discharge authority AFPC/CC. The applicant was separated 
from the Air Force on 20 December 2010 with 1 year, 6 months, and 
24 days of active service. 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 applicant’s 
consideration by the Initial Skills Training (IST) panel and that 
the decision to recoup a pro-rated educational assistance is 
appropriate. 

 

There were a number of actions that led to the determination to 
discharge the applicant and recoup a portion of his educational 
assistance. He entered UPT on 19 Feb 2010 and chose to self 
eliminate on 10 June 2010. On 4 August 2010, the applicant and 
his commander completed the Officer IST Elimination Package, 
which included the Officer Training Eliminee Recoupment Statement 
where he specifically acknowledged that he may be “subject to 
recoupment of a portion of education assistance.” 

 

His elimination package was presented to the IST Reclassification 
Panel on 22 September 2010. There were no valid Air Force 
requirements that the applicant was qualified to be reclassified 
to, therefore, the panel recommended discharge and recoupment of 
educational assistance. 

 

The complete DPSIP evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial of a change in the applicant’s SPD 
code and narrative reason. 

 

The applicant incorrectly states that his SPD code states he was 
separated due to a failure to meet standards; however, the 
applicant was separated with the SPD code “JHF” and narrative 
reason of “Failure to Complete a Course of Instruction.” The 


applicant’s SPD code was properly established based upon his 
elimination from training. 

 

The complete DPSOS evaluation with attachment is at Exhibit D. 

 

AFPC/JA recommends denial of the applicant’s requests. 

 

At the time the applicant entered USAFA, he executed a Record of 
Acceptance, Obligation and Oath of Allegiance (USAFA Form O-205), 
which contained the following provision: 

 

 As a condition of receiving advanced education as defined in 
Title 10, USC, Section 2005, I agree: 

 

 c. that if I voluntarily or because of misconduct fail to 
complete the period of active duty, [specified in the agreement] 
or fail to fulfill any term or condition prescribed by the 
Secretary of the Air Force, I will, as specified by the Air 
Force, reimburse the United States government for the percentage 
of my education costs equal to the period of active duty that I 
fail to complete… 

 

This language comes virtually verbatim from Section 2005, Title 
10, United States Code that was in effect on the date of 
signature. Although the recoupment provisions of 10 USC 2005 
were superseded/repealed by the 2006 NDAA, they remain in effect 
pursuant to a “savings clause,” for monies obligated to be paid 
by the government prior to 1 April 2006. Public law 109-163, 
Section 687(f), 119 Stat. at 3336, recorded at 10 USC 510 note. 
A memo from AETC 71OG/CD dated 28 June 2010 states that while air 
sickness was a factor in the applicant’s decision to DOR, the 
deciding factor in the applicant’s decision was his lack of will 
and desire to complete the training and live the “pilot 
lifestyle” for ten years. 

 

AFPC/JA disagrees with the applicant’s argument the Form 63 did 
not provide a basis for recoupment because the basis for 
applicant’s elimination from training was not “voluntary” or 
because of misconduct. It is their opinion that officers like 
the applicant, who received financial assistance from the Air 
Force Academy by virtue of a contract signed before 1 April 2006, 
are subject to recoupment as a training eliminee if the IST 
failure is determined to be within the member’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. 

 

AFPC/JA provides further discussion of why they believe 
recoupment is authorized in the applicant’s case to include 
comparison to AFROTC contracts, how the DoD defined the term 
“voluntary” in an analogous statute in Favreau v. United States 
to mean not only where separation is granted at the specific 
request of the service member, but also, where a service-


initiated separation results from actions or conduct within a 
service member’s control. 

 

AFPC/JA concludes that the ultimate decision whether to recoup 
belongs to the Secretary of the Air Force and in this case his 
designee, AFPC/CC, properly determined that recoupment was 
appropriate in this case, and that no policy or equity concern 
existed that would provide otherwise. 

 

The complete AFPC/JA advisory is at Exhibit E. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

Copies of the Air Force advisories were mailed to the applicant 
on 21 November 2011. To date a response has not been received. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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. After careful 
consideration of the applicant’s request and the available 
evidence of record, we find insufficient evidence of error or 
injustice to warrant corrective action. The facts and opinions 
stated in the advisory opinions appear to be based on the 
evidence of record and have not been adequately rebutted by the 
applicant. Absent persuasive evidence the applicant’s separation 
program designator code and subsequent debt was improperly 
established, 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 AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2011-01564 in Executive Session on 4 Jan 11, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

, Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 8 April 2011, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSIP, not dated. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 17 November 2011. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 18 November 2011. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 November 2011. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair