AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 
DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-00382 
COUNSEL:  NONE 
HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

IN THE MATTER OF: 
 
   
   
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
 
She  be  reclassified  into  a  Regular  Air  Force  Specialty  Code 
(AFSC)  like  other  members  who  met  the  Initial  Skills  Training 
(IST) board. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
She  was  eliminated  from  a  rated  career  field,  Air  Battle 
Manager,  near  the  end  of  her  nine  month  training  and  believes 
had she met the May IST board as originally scheduled, she would 
have been reclassified.   
 
She  was  misled  by  the  Air  Force  Personnel  Center  (AFPC)  in 
thinking that her squadron never submitted her package; however, 
these  statements  were  false  as  was  noted  in  her  exception  to 
policy memo she tried to submit prior to her discharge.  Because 
of these errors, she met the July board, which had fewer slots 
and  was  discharged.    Had  she  met  the  May  or  October  board  she 
more  than  likely  would  have  been  reclassified  like  most  of  her 
contemporaries she knows.   
 
She  has  done  everything  possible  to  have  an  opportunity  to 
continue  to  serve  and  contribute  as  she  did  in  the  Junior 
Reserve Officer Training Corps (JROTC) and the ROTC. 
 
In  support  of  her  appeal,  the  applicant  provides  copies  of 
letters  of  recommendation;  email  correspondence,  and  an 
exception to policy letter to the IST board. 
 
The  applicant's  complete  submission,  with  attachments,  is  at 
Exhibit A. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
 
On  7  May  07,  the  applicant  received  a  three  and  a  half  year 
scholarship  from  the  Air  Force  to  participate  in  the  AFROTC 
program.   
 
She  was  commissioned  as  a  second  lieutenant  and  on  9  May  10 
entered active duty for training.   
 

skills 

training; 

was 

she 

considered 

On  7  Jun  10,  she  entered  Undergraduate  Air  Battle  Manager 
Training,  and  on  4  Apr  11,  was  eliminated  due  to  academic 
deficiencies.  She failed BMA-29 (Block 1 Test 2) with a score 
of  80  percent  on  8  Sep  10  and  passed  the  retest  with  a 
92 percent.    On  17  Sep  10,  she  failed  CCF-8  (Block  2  Test  1) 
with an 84 percent and passed the retest with a 98 percent.  She 
failed  LFE-12  (Block  8  Test  1)  with  a  score  of  80  percent; 
however, her overall academic average was 90 percent. 
 
As  a  probationary  officer,  the  applicant  was  eliminated  from 
initial 
for 
reclassification, on 27 July 2011, in accordance with AFPCI 36-
112,  Line  Officer  Initial  Skill  Training  Reclassification 
Procedures.    A  panel  of  five  senior  officers  reviewed  her 
reclassification  application  and  submitted  a  recommendation 
regarding  reclassification  or  discharge  to  the  AFPC  Commander.  
Throughout the process, she was counseled on the possibility of 
discharge. 
 
The  reclassification  panel  considered  the  applicant’s  request; 
however,  the  panel  recommended  discharge  in  lieu  of 
reclassification.  The AFPC Commander concurred with the panel’s 
recommendation and the applicant was directed to be discharged.  
In  addition,  the  panel  asserted  that  her  elimination  was  not 
within  her  control  and  therefore,  her  ability  to  fulfill  her 
active duty service commitment (ADSC) was also deemed beyond her 
control.    As  a  result,  the  AFPC  Commander  requested  the 
Secretary  of  the  Air  Force  waive  the  pro-rata  share  of  the 
applicant’s unserved ADSC associated with her AFROTC scholarship 
in accordance with 10 USC Section 2005.  The estimated value of 
the  requested  waiver  was  approximately  $21,179.34.    The  waiver 
was approved on 3 Oct 11, thereby relieving her of any debt to 
the government resulting from her education.   
 
On 7 Dec 11, the applicant was honorably discharged by reason of 
failure to complete a course of instruction. 
 
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained  in  the  letter  prepared  by  the  appropriate  office  of 
the Air Force at Exhibit C. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
AFPC/DPSIP  recommends  denial,  stating,  in  part,  it  was 
determined  that  the  applicant's  case  was  handled  properly  and 
she  received  a  fair  evaluation  consistent  with  all  other 
officers  eliminated  from  initial  skills  training.    The 
applicant's claim that her application was submitted in time to 
meet  an  earlier  panel,  and  an  administrative  error  prevented 
earlier  consideration  is  accurate.    However,  there  is  no 
guarantee  her  consideration  on  an  earlier  panel  would  have 
yielded  a  different  result.    She  holds  a  degree  in  Community 
Mental  Health,  which  is  not  listed  on  the  mandatory  or  desired 
degree  listing  for  any  line  officer  career  field  in  the  Air 
Force  Officer  Classification  Directory.    The  lack  of  an  Air 
 

2

heavily 

in 

the 

weighed 

performance 

Force  requirement  for  her  degree,  along  with  her  sub-standard 
academic 
panel's 
recommendation.    These  factors  would  have  been  the  same 
regardless of the date of her panel.  Following a review of her 
application, the panel did not recommend continued retention or 
reclassification  based  upon  a  whole-person  review,  which 
included  her  military  records,  commander's  recommendation,  the 
reason for elimination, her degree, any other special skills or 
experience, and her personal communication to the panel.  All of 
these  factors  were  weighed  against  Air  Force  requirements.    In 
the  end,  her  application  was  processed  and  reviewed  in 
accordance with all applicable laws, regulations, and policies.  
The AFPC Commander concurred with the panel’s recommendation and 
the  applicant  was  directed  to  be  discharged.    In  addition,  the 
panel  asserted  the  applicant’s  elimination  was  not  within  her 
control  and  therefore,  her  ability  to  fulfill  her  active  duty 
service commitment was also deemed beyond her control. 
 
The complete DPSIP evaluation is at Exhibit C. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
A  copy  of  the  Air  Force  evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the 
applicant on 4 May 12 for review and comment within 30 days.  To 
date, a response has not been received (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 error or injustice.  We took notice 
of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of 
the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation 
of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its 
rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has 
not  been  the  victim  of  an  error  or  injustice.    In  addition, 
while  we  note  the  applicant’s  arguments,  we  did  not  find  the 
evidence  sufficient  for  us  to  determine  with  any  certainty  had 
the  applicant  been  considered  by  the  earlier  board,  that  she 
would  have  been  retained.    The  applicant  has  not  provided 
sufficient evidence to show that she was treated any differently 
than others similarly situated.    In view of the above and 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: 
 
 

3

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-2012-00382  in  Executive  Session  on  21  August  2012, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 
 
The following documentary evidence was considered: 
 
    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 Jan 12.  
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIP, dated 23 Mar 12. 
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 May 12. 
 
 
 
 
                                   Vice Chair 
 

 

4