RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-04176

		COUNSEL:  NO

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO


________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  He be reinstated to active duty.  

2.  In the alternative, he receive a waiver for recoupment of the portion of the amount owed for his United States Air Force Academy (USAFA) education.  

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He had a medical waiver that rendered him ineligible to maintain his Personnel Reliability Program (PRP) certification prior to entering Specialized Undergraduate Pilot training (SUPT).  As a result, he was eliminated from pilot training and reclassified into the 13S1 (Space and Missile Operations) Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC).  However, his reclassification was erroneous since the 13S1 AFSC also required certification under the PRP.  Because of this error, he was erroneously discharged instead of being considered for a second reclassification.  He should not be held accountable for a second reclassification because AFPC erred in reclassifying him into an AFSC that required PRP certification.  

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s military personnel records indicate he was commissioned in the Regular Air Force on 30 May 07. 

On 28 Jan 08, the applicant acknowledged his active duty service commitment(ADSC) of 10 years.  

On 23 Apr 09, according to the applicant’s aeronautical orders, he commenced SUPT.

On 21 Oct 09, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was being recommended for elimination from training due to a flying training deficiency.  The reason for the action was because of his failure to meet standards.  

On 21 Oct 09, the applicant acknowledged notification of his entry into the Commander’s Review Process, that he understood the ramifications of the situation, as well as his intent to submit a show cause memorandum.  

On 10 Nov 09, the applicant’s Commander recommended his elimination from pilot training due to his failure to meet standards.  In addition, he recommended the applicant not be considered for reinstatement in the course at a later date.  

On 10 Nov 09, the approving authority directed the applicant’s elimination from pilot training due to his failure to meet standards and that his reclassification/retention would be based on the needs of the Air Force.  

On 12 Nov 09, the applicant was eliminated from SUPT for flying training deficiency, effective 10 Nov 09.  

On 1 Feb 10, the applicant was determined to be medically acceptable for Space and Missile Operations Duty (SMOD) with a waiver for a history of migraines and nondependent alcohol abuse, with an expiration date of 3 Jan 12.  

On 8 Apr 10, the applicant’s squadron commander recommended his disenrollment from training and to being permanently disqualified under the PRP because of a prerequisite deficiency.  His reclassification/retention should be based on the needs of the Air Force.

On 12 Apr 10, the approving official permanently disqualified/decertified the applicant from the PRP program because he lost confidence that he can perform 100 percent of the nuclear mission.  

On 12 Apr 10, the applicant acknowledged the officer training eliminee recoupment statement and requested to be reclassified.  

On 16 Apr 10, the applicant’s commander approved the squadron commander’s recommendation.  

On 16 Aug 10, the applicant was furnished an honorable discharge and was credited with 3 years, 2 months, and 17 days of total active service. 

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSIP indicated the applicant was cleared for Initial Flight Screening (IFS) with a medical waiver for alcohol dependency prior to commissioning.  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.  The applicant was reclassified into the space and missile career field without knowledge of the alcohol concerns.  The applicant’s second elimination from IST was based upon PRP decertification.  If the applicant’s alcohol abuse history had been known, he would have been reclassified into a non-PRP career field.  At the time of his second elimination from training the IST Reclassification Panel process was in place and was not aware of his alcohol-related incident.  The only career field available was 14N, Intel and due to the unknown nature of the PRP decertification, potential collateral concerns regarding security clearances, and the force management environment influences at the time of the panel, the applicant was recommended for discharge in lieu of reclassification.  In addition, he was recommended for recoupment.  On 14 Dec 11, the IST Reclassification Panel convened and determined the applicant’s reclassification was not in the best interest of the Air Force.  In addition, the applicant was directed to reimburse the United States government for the unserved portion (pro-rata share) of the amount expended on educational assistance.  The commander concurred with the panel’s recommendation and the applicant was discharged and directed to repay the government $55,984.77 for the pro-rata share of the unserved active duty service commitment associated with his USAFA education.  

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIP evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________ 

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant indicates that the AFPC/DPSIP evaluation contains several false statements.  He has never been diagnosed with alcohol dependency or issued a waiver regarding such a diagnosis, neither before nor after his commissioning.  Although it was indicated that had it been known he had an alcohol abuse history, he could have been reclassified into a non-PRP career field.  However, he argues that AFPC received an aeromedical summary which clearly indicated that he had a waiver for NONDEPENDNET ALCOHOL ABUSE.  As such, he should have been retained on active duty in a non-PRP career field.  Also, he believes that he has not been afforded due process because the initial IST Reclassification Panel erroneously reclassified him into a career field requiring PRP 

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at 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 an injustice.  We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case, to include his response to the Air Force evaluation; however, we find no injustice occurred during the applicant’s reclassification process.  The applicant argues he should be reinstated due to erroneously being reclassified into a career field requiring Personnel Reliability Program (PRP) certification; however, even if we assume for the sake of argument that the Air Force erred when reclassifying the applicant into a field requiring PRP certification, we are not convinced that relief would be warranted.  In this respect, we note there is no evidence there was a non-PRP specialty available at the time of the applicant’s initial reclassification.  As such, we can only presume that had the Air Force not initially reclassified the applicant, he would have been discharged at that time.  Instead, it appears the applicant’s reclassification, which the applicant argues was erroneous, worked to his advantage because he was able to serve for an additional eight months rather than being immediately discharged, thereby reducing the amount he owed for his USAFA education.  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 the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2012-04176 in Executive Session on 31 Oct 13, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

		Panel Chair
		Member
		Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:
    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 6 Sep 12.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIP, dated 26 Oct 12
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Nov 12.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 2 Dec 12, w/atchs.




                                   
                                   Panel Chair