RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-03316 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

The recoupment of monies expended on his undergraduate pilot 
training (UPT) be waived. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He should not be subjected to recoupment of monies because he was 
willing to fulfill his obligation by serving in the Air Force in 
any specialty that was available. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of 
documents extracted from his military personnel records. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

On 12 Aug 03, the applicant enlisted in the Air Force. He was 
accepted in a commissioning program and was commissioned as a 
second lieutenant 26 May 10. He entered extended active duty to 
complete pilot training. The applicant received an Article 15 
for operating a vehicle while drunk. He was eliminated from 
pilot training on 24 Jan 11 for misconduct. The applicant 
requested reclassification consideration and on 30 Mar 11, the 
designated authority for the initial skills training elimination 
reclassification and discharge authority recommended the 
applicant be discharged with recoupment of the pro rata share of 
the monies the government expended for his pilot training. He 
was honorably discharged on 18 Jun 11. He was credited with 
8 years, 7 months and 19 days of active service. 

 

In accordance with Title 10 USC Section 630, AFI 36-3207, AFGM 
1 dated 13 April 2010, and AFPCI 36-112, the Air Force reviews 
reclassification applications following initial skills training 
elimination through a formal panel process. The Secretary of the 


Air Force designated AFPC/CC as the initial skills training 
elimination reclassification and discharge authority. 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. Furthermore, reclassification is not a right. The 
inability to fulfill active duty service commitments associated 
with education-related scholarships or Air Force Academy 
attendance is tied to the Air Force requirement the individual 
was commissioned and accessed to fill. 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

HQ AFPC/DPSIP recommends denial noting recoupment of the pro-rata 
portion of the applicant’s unserved active duty service 
commitment is required by law unless waived by the Secretary of 
the Air Force. Waivers for recoupment are based upon whether the 
officer was in control of his ability to complete the active duty 
service commitment. The applicant was eliminated from pilot 
training based on misconduct and not the disapproval for IST 
reclassification. 

 

The complete HQ AFPC/DPSIP evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The applicant believes the punishment he received for his single 
act of misconduct has gone well beyond what was right or just. 
His single act of misconduct was in no way more egregious than 
other forms of misconduct seen on the base. Even some in 
leadership have admitted to succumbing to the same mistake in the 
early days of their career. He accepted his punishment and 
removal from UPT, but does not believe this single mistake of 
character was an indication of his ability to be an officer or a 
pilot. There are several officers who committed this same act of 
misconduct, but because they have their pilot-wings, and are more 
of an "asset”, did not receive the same punishment. He was 
punished for his misconduct, but was not offered a chance to 
learn from his single mistake. His single act of misconduct has 
been a burden financially and emotionally He believes he is a 
victim because there was no precedent set for his misconduct and 
his future was solely at the discretion of leadership. 

 

The applicant’s complete response, with attachment, is at 
Exhibit E. 

 

____________________________________________________________ 

 


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 an error or injustice. We took 
notice of the applicant's complete submission, to include his 
rebuttal statement, in judging the merits of the case; however, 
we agree with the opinion and the recommendation of the Air Force 
office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the 
primary basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been 
the victim of an error or injustice. The applicant's contentions 
are duly noted; however, we note the applicant’s elimination from 
pilot training and reclassification request was considered and 
denied due to his misconduct and inability to fulfill his active 
duty service commitment. Although the applicant alleges he has 
been treated unfairly as compared to others similarly situated, 
we do not find the evidence he has presented sufficient to 
support his assertion. 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 AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2011-03316 in Executive Session on 12 Apr 12 under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 


The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2011-03316 was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 17 Aug 11, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Military Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. HQ AFPC/DPSIP, dated 23 Sep 11. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Oct 11. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 12 Oct 11. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair