AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 

  
  
  

DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2010-03242 
 
COUNSEL:  NONE 
HEARING DESIRED:  YES 

IN THE MATTER OF: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
 
He be reinstated to active duty. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
After  serving  eight  years  on  active  duty  in  an  enlisted  status 
and  attending  Officer  Training  School  (OTS)  to  become  an 
officer, he was unfairly discharged because he was disqualified 
from  the  Personal  Reliability  Program  (PRP),  contrary  to  Air 
Force Regulations. 
 
During  OTS  he  was  selected  for  Space  and  Missile  Officer 
training.  After receiving partial information on the duties of 
the  position,  he  voiced  his  reservations  on  launching  nuclear 
weapons  and  his  possible  medical  ineligibility  to  perform  PRP 
duties, as it was his responsibility to do under the PRP.  Upon 
assignment  to  the  training  squadron,  he  once  again  voiced  his 
concerns to his Flight Commander.  He did so because he did not 
want  to  waste  Air  Force  time  and  money,  and  the  best  way  to 
expedite  the  situation  was  to  inform  his  leadership  upon  his 
arrival to the unit.  He was later medically cleared for PRP and 
met twice with his commander to discuss his reservations and was 
asked  a  number  of  questions,  to  include  his  ability  to  inflict 
civilian  casualties  and  if  he  could  not,  what  would  be  the 
sufficient  number  of  casualties  he  could  kill.  He  felt  that  he 
could  not  provide  such  a  number  due  to  the  lack  of  education 
from  his  command  concerning  the  duties.    Although  all  other 
members going into missile training receive initial training on-
the-job (OJT) prior to starting the class, he never received any 
OJT.  His commander advised him that she was going to recommend 
his separation; however, he did not indicate why.  Furthermore, 
she never tried to reclassify him nor handle the situation in a 
timely manner.  He filed a complaint with the Inspector General 
(IG) office and notified his leadership that he had done so.  He 
later  was  educated  on  the  duties  of  a  missile  officer  by  an 
instructor and no longer had reservations about performing those 
duties.  He advised the commander of this and she indicated that 
although she would forward his package for reclassification, she 
had  to  decertify  him  from  the  PRP.    His  PRP  decertification 

286a, 

PRP 

Permanent 

occurred  on  the  same  day  the  commander  found  out  about  his  IG 
complaint  and  was  the  result  of  him  filing  the  complaint.    He 
later discovered that his previously considered reclassification 
package  was  incomplete  because  he  was  never  given  the 
opportunity to write a personal statement.  
 
In  support  of  the  appeal,  the  applicant  submits  copies  of  his 
performance  reports,  a  letter  from  a  former  rater,  the  IG 
response  to  his  complaint,  notification  of  the  results  of  the 
Initial  Skill  Training  (IST)  Reclassification/Discharge  Panel, 
an  email  concerning  his  attendance  in  class  10-07,  and  an  AF 
Form 
Disqualification/Decertification 
Action.   
 
The  applicant’s  complete  submission,  with  attachments,  is  at 
Exhibit A. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
 
After serving on active duty in an enlisted status from 14 May 
2002  through  16  December  2009,  he  was  commissioned  a  second 
lieutenant  in  the  Regular  Air  Force  on  17  December  2009  and 
entered active duty. 
 
On  27  December  2009,  he  was  assigned  to  the  392nd  Training 
Squadron,  Vandenberg  AFB,  CA,  as  a  student  in  class  10007  to 
attend Space and Missile Officer training on 1 February 2010.   
 
On  29  December  2009,  he  advised  his  Flight  Commander  and  PRP 
manager of his reservations about launching nuclear weapons and 
that he was possibly medically ineligible for PRP certification.  
Based  on  his  disclosure,  the  Fight  Commander  requested  that  he 
prepare a Memorandum for Record (MFR) outlining his reservations 
and  scheduled  him  for  a  medical  appointment  to  confirm  his 
medical eligibility for PRP certification.  He submitted an MFR 
to his Flight Commander outlining his reservations.   
 
On  22  January  2010,  he  was  advised  that  he  would  not  begin 
missile officer training. 
 
On  4  February  2010,  he  was  found  medically  qualified  for  PRP 
certification. 
 
On  1  and  8  March  2010,  he  met  with  the  Squadron  Commander, 
Flight  Commander,  and  First  Sergeant,  to  discuss  his  concerns 
with  nuclear  weapons  duty  and  indicated  that  his  position  did 
not  change.    The  Squadron  Commander  advised  him  that  she  would 
be recommending his separation from the Air Force. 
 
On 22 March 2010, the applicant filed a complaint with the IG, 
alleging  unfair  treatment  at  the  392nd  Training  Squadron, 
subsequent  to  his  voicing  his  concerns  with  fulfilling  his 

 

 

2010, 

the 

Skill 

25 

May 

Initial 

Training 

duties  as  a  Space  and  Missile  Officer.    Specifically,  his 
commander was not following interim and AFI guidance concerning 
training  and  that  although  he  had  been  recommended  for 
separation he had been given no reason for doing so. 
 
On  31  March  2010,  the  applicant  again  met  with  the  Squadron 
Commander  and  indicated  that  based  on  information  he  received 
from  an  instructor  he  no  longer  had  reservations  about  nuclear 
weapons  duty.    In  view  of  this,  she  reversed  her  earlier 
recommendation for separation and instead recommended that he be 
retained  and  reclassified.    However,  since  he  was  to  be 
retained,  she  was  required  to  make  a  determination  on  his  PRP 
eligibility.    Based  on  the  applicant’s  earlier  concerns  with 
missile officer duty, the Squadron Commander initiated action to 
permanently decertify him from the PRP.     
 
On  8  April  2010,  he  acknowledged  his  right  to  appeal  the 
permanent  PRP  decertification  and  certified  that  he  would  not 
submit any additional information.  
 
(IST) 
On 
Reclassification/Discharge panel met at AFPC and determined the 
applicant  would  not  be  reclassified  but  discharge.    The 
applicant  was  advised  of  the  decision  and  that  he  would  be 
honorably  discharged;  however,  based  on  his  previous  enlisted 
service,  he  was  offered  the  opportunity  to  reenlist  in  his 
previous enlisted grade, i.e., staff sergeant (E-5).  
 
On 16 June 2010, the 381st Training Group Commander, notified the 
applicant that AETC/IG had referred his [first] complaint to him 
on  29 March  2010  and  that  after  reviewing  his  concerns, 
determined there was no intent to keep information from him.  He 
further  advised  that  on  30  March  2010,  he  instructed  the 
commander  and  her  staff  to  make  every  effort  to  keep  him 
informed  of  his  status  and  to  provide  him  information  in  a 
timely manner. 
 
On 19 July 2010, Headquarters Air Education and Training Command 
(Hq AETC) considered and denied his appeal of his permanent PRP 
decertification. 
 
On  16  August  2010,  he  was  separated  for  failure  to  complete  a 
course of instruction, with severance pay. 
 
On  26  October  2010,  AETC/IGQ  provided  the  applicant  the  final 
response to his 9 June 2010 email, indicating that it was their 
independent  determination,  based  on  the  evidence,  the  Squadron 
Commander had sufficient justification for the actions initiated 
regarding  his  PRP  status,  continuation  in  training,  and 
reclassification.  They further advised him the evidence clearly 
indicated  the  actions  were  not  initiated  in  reprisal  for 
protected  communications  made  to  the  IG  but  were  the  logical 
consequence  of  events  he  set  in  motion;  they  found  no  evidence 
to  support  credible  allegations  of  abuse  of  authority;  their 

 

 

determination  was  approved  by  SAF/IGQ  and  IG  DoD  MRI;  and  that 
as  such,  he  had  received  the  decision  of  the  final  approval 
authority.  In addition, he was advised of his rights to appeal 
the  decision  of  IG  DoD  MRI  to  that  office  and  of  his  right  to 
apply for correction of military records under 10 USC 1034. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
AFPC/DPTSF  provides  no  recommendation,  noting  the  applicant’s 
previous  request  for  reinstatement/administrative  qualification 
consideration  was  forwarded  to  the  Nuclear  Operations  and 
Integration  Division  of  the  Air  Staff  (AF/A10-ON)  who 
disapproved  requalification  reconsideration,  certification,  and 
reinstatement. 
 
The complete AFPC/DPTSF evaluation is at Exhibit C. 
 
AFPC/DPSIP  reviewed  the  application  and  states  that  since  the 
areas considered by the Initial Skills Training (IST) panel are 
subjective  they  are  unable  to  provide  the  reason  for  the 
recommended separation and recoupment of the applicant.  In this 
regard,  they  note  that  IST  panel  members  considered  the 
applicant’s  potential  to  complete  required  training  for  other 
Air Force Specialty Codes (AFSCs); his potential to develop and 
contribute  in  subject  career  field  should  he  be  reclassified; 
any  unique  or  special  abilities/skills  he  might  have  in  high 
demand language skills, i.e., Chinese, Russian, Arabic, Korean, 
etc, that could benefit subject career field or the broader Air 
Force  in  the  future;  his  demonstrated  “officership”  and 
commitment  to  the  Air  Force;  and  the  potential  payback  to  the 
Air Force. 
 
The complete AFPC/DPSIP evaluation is at Exhibit D. 
 
AFPC/JA  reviewed  the  application  and  recommends  denial,  as  the 
applicant  has  not  established  an  error  or  injustice  warranting 
relief.  While it appears the applicant was properly decertified 
from  PRP  and  thereafter  eliminated  from  training  based  on  his 
self-professed reservation about carrying-out all aspects of the 
nuclear  mission,  which  on  its  face,  constitutes  a  basis  for 
decertification,  they  are  not  the  experts  on  the  PRP  program.  
To  whatever  degree  the  Board  might  believe  the  PRP 
decertification issue has not been satisfactorily addressed, it 
can  request  a  separate  advisory  on  that  subject  from  the 
appropriate  office  of  primary  responsibility  (OPR).    With 
respect  to  the  legality  and  fairness  of  the  discharge  action, 
the  authority  to  discharge  an  IST  eliminee  provides  that 
pursuant to Section 630 of Title 10 United States Code (10 USC 
630)  and  Department  of  Defense  Instruction  1332.30,  paragraph 
4(d), the Secretary of the Air Force or delegee, may voluntarily 
separate  probationary  officers  when  they  do  not  complete  IST 
training and there is no requirement for the officer’s continued 

 

 

service.    The  legality  of  which  was  recently  upheld  in  an 
opinion issued by the General Counsel of the Air Force (National 
Security  and  Military  Affairs),  SAF/GCM.    In  addition,  the 
decision not to reclassify him into another career field was, in 
essence,  a  force  management  decision  made  after  careful 
evaluation  of  all  the  factors  in  his  record,  bearing  on  the 
“whole person” concept.  Most importantly, the process includes 
a comparison of the officer’s skills and qualifications to those 
critical skills or career fields which the Air Force determines, 
at  any  moment  in  time,  require  additional  manpower.    In  the 
applicant’s case, the initial review and recommendation was made 
by  five  disinterested  senior  officers,  who  by  charter  of  the 
Secretary  of  the  Air  Force,  acted  in  the  best  interest  of  the 
Air Force.  There is no evidence that proves, or even suggests, 
that Air Force officials responsible for the separation decision 
acted arbitrarily or abused their discretion. 
 
A complete copy of the AFPC/JA evaluation, with attached SAF/GCM 
opinion, are at Exhibit E. 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
Copies of the Air Force evaluations, to include the 23 June 2011 
SAF/GCM  referenced  by  AFPC/JA,  were  forwarded  to  the  applicant 
on  19  August  2011  for  review  and  comments,  within  30  days.  
However, as of this date, no response has been received by this 
office. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
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  to  warrant 
overturning  the  decision  of  the  IST  Reclassification/Discharge 
panel.    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.  In this respect, we note 
the following: 
 
a.  The  applicant  voiced  his  concerns  with  respect  to 
 
fulfilling  nuclear  weapons  duties  and  based  on  these  comments, 
the commander initially indicated that she would be recommending 
his discharge.  However, she subsequently reversed her position 
and recommended that he meet the IST Reclassification/Discharge 
panel  for  possible  retention/reclassification  based  on  a 

 

 

to 

630. 

 

The 

10 

USC 

pursuant 

subsequent  conversation  the  two  had  in  which  he  indicated  that 
he could complete nuclear officer duties.  Consequently, she was 
required  to  make  a  determination  on  his  PRP  eligibility  since 
she was recommending his reclassification/retention.  In view of 
his  earlier  concerns  with  nuclear  weapons  duty,  she  initiated 
action  to  permanently  decertify  him  from  the  PRP,  which  he  did 
not appeal. 
 
 
b.  Contrary  to  the  applicant’s  assertion,  the  decision  to 
discharge him was based on a force management decision rendered 
by the IST Reclassification/Discharge panel, under its delegated 
authority 
IST 
Reclassification/Discharge  panel’s  decision  was  based  on  a 
comparison of the applicant’s skills and qualifications to those 
critical skills or career fields which the Air Force determined 
required additional manpower. 
 
 
c.  We  find  it  abundantly  clear,  as  did  AETC/IG,  SAF/IGQ, 
and IG DoD MRI, the alleged unfavorable personnel action, i.e., 
the  applicant’s  permanent  PRP  decertification,  would  have 
occurred  even  in  the  absence  of  his  protected  communication, 
i.e., filing of his first IG complaint.  The findings of these 
offices  appear  to  be  supported  by  the  evidence  of  record  and 
there  has  been  no  showing  the  investigations  were  improperly 
conducted.    As  such,  we  find  no  basis  to  overturn  their 
decisions  or  to  direct  further  investigation.    We  note  that 
given  the  presumption  of  regularity  in  the  operation  of 
governmental  affairs  and  in  the  absence  of  corroborative 
documentary  evidence  establishing  impropriety,  it  is  presumed 
that  officers  of  the  government,  like  other  public  officials, 
discharge  their  duties  correctly,  lawfully,  and  in  good  faith.  
The  applicant  has  not  provided  sufficient  evidence  to  overcome 
this presumption. 
 
 
d.  In view of the above and in the absence of evidence to 
the  contrary,  we  are  not  persuaded  the  applicant  has  been  the 
victim  of  reprisal  under  10  USC  1034.    Further,  based  on  a 
totality of the evidence presented, we are not persuaded that he 
has met his burden of establishing the existence of an error or 
an injustice in his records under 10 USC 1552, as the decision 
of  the  IST  Reclassification/Discharge  panel  was  within  their 
delegated  authority  and  the  applicant  provides  no  evidence  its 
decision  was  arbitrary  or  capricious,  or  that  he  was  denied 
rights to which entitled. 
 
4.  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  following  members  of  the  Board  considered  AFBCMR  Docket 
Number  BC-2010-03242  in  Executive  Session  on  21  February  2012, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 
 
 
The following documentary evidence was considered: 
 
     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 Aug 10, w/atchs. 
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPTSF, dated 10 Nov 10. 
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIP, dated 22 Nov 10, w/atchs. 
     Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 3 Aug 11, w/atch. 
     Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Aug 11. 
     Exhibit F.  SAF/IG Investigations, w/atchs (Withdrawn). 
 
 
 
 
                                    
                                   Acting Panel Chair