RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-01941 

 COUNSEL: 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

Her involuntary discharge be overturned, and she be allowed to 
remain on active duty as an officer. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

In a 10-page statement the applicant’s counsel alleges unfair 
treatment following the applicant’s elimination from Initial 
Skills Training (IST) resulting in her discharge and recoupment 
of funds associated with her United States Air Force Academy 
(USAFA) education. 

 

The Panel members did not faithfully execute their 
responsibilities in accordance with Air Force Personnel Center 
Instruction (AFPCI) 36-112, Line Officer Initial Skill Training 
Reclassification Procedures, in that the Panel members simply 
accepted the recommendation of her squadron commander, which was 
biased and discriminatory, without consideration of other factors 
which demonstrate her potential to serve as an officer in the Air 
Force. 

 

The Panel members are required to “review the elimination 
packages using the whole person concept to determine if an 
officer should be reclassified.” In making such a determination, 
the Panel members were to consider the following factors: 

 

 1) The officer’s potential to complete required training 
for AFSC qualification… 

 

 2) The officer’s potential to develop and contribute in 
subject career field… 

 

 3) Any unique or special abilities/skills in high demand 
languages… 

 

 4) Those eliminees with hard science and engineering 
degrees. 

 

 5) The officer’s demonstrated officership and commitment 
to the Air Force. 

 


The Panel gave inappropriate weight to the Commander’s biased 
assessment of the applicant. 

Her squadron commander took the extreme position that since she 
had reservations regarding her ability to launch weapons of mass 
destruction without hesitation, that she was unfit to serve in 
the Air Force in any capacity. 

 

The Panel failed to consider her student statement and reason for 
elimination; her potential to develop and contribute in another 
career field; any skills in “high demand,” languages, and her 
demonstrated officership and commitment to the Air Force. 

 

Her commander failed to directly and appropriately address any 
aspects of her officer-qualities. He makes no mention of her 
dedication to the Air Force, her leadership ability, her academic 
excellence, her motivation, her moral character, her physical 
fitness or her integrity. Instead, he answered “No– She does not 
possess the qualities required of an Air Force officer. She 
believes she can choose what orders and missions she approves of 
and take the moral stand against those she does not approve of. 
This is incompatible with what is required of military officers.” 

 

The missile career field is the only career field where officers 
must sign a letter of commitment to use nuclear weapons. The 
comparison to officers who do not have to sign such a commitment 
is unfair. There may be hundreds, if not thousands, of officers 
who oppose nuclear weapons who, as a result of their Air Force 
Specialty Code (AFSC), did not have to sign a letter of 
commitment. 

 

The commander was required to assess if she was motivated to 
pursue a non-rated career field; which he responded “Not 
Applicable,” which further highlights his narrow and biased 
attitude toward her. 

 

The Panel failed to weigh her potential to develop and contribute 
in a career field. The panel was informed she was qualified to 
fill other AFSCs. In reviewing her degree, special coursework, 
and her own preferences, the Panel should have realized there 
were ample opportunities for reclassification. As there was a 
need in certain AFSCs, and she was qualified to fill such a need, 
the Panel should have reclassified her into such a career. Not 
doing so shows the Panel heavily relied on the ONLY piece of 
documentation stating she was unfit to fill such a position—her 
commander’s assessment. 

 

The Board failed to consider the applicant’s “high demand” 
language skills. AFPCI 36-112, requires the board to consider 
any special abilities or skills in “high demand” that could 
benefit the Air Force in the future. This section specifically 
mentions the Chinese language, which the applicant is virtually 
an expert in the Chinese language and culture. 

 


The Board failed to properly consider her demonstrated 
officership and commitment to the Air Force. She had numerous 
positive recommendations made by people who knew her both 
professionally and personally for several years. The only 
negative viewpoint was not based on any interaction with her, but 
rather on a personal viewpoint that those opposed to nuclear 
weapons should not be allowed to serve in the military. For the 
Panel to consider and weigh her commander’s minimal contacts and 
viewpoint more significantly than the numerous positive 
recommendations, which are based on several years of 
interactions, shows the inappropriate amount of weight the Panel 
gave to her commanders’ assessment. 

 

The board failed to consider her potential payback to the Air 
Force. She is required to pay the U.S. government the pro rata 
share of the amount expended on her USAFA scholarship which came 
to $143,672.85. This sizeable investment in training should not 
go to waste. While the Air Force seeks to recoup this investment 
financially, it cannot do so on a professional level. The 
product produced by this cost is an outstanding, motivated and 
very capable officer with four years of Mandarin Chinese, two 
intensive Chinese summer language immersion programs in China, 
six months at Nanjing University as part of the extremely 
competitive Study Abroad Program and four weeks in Beijing, China 
as part of the Air Force’s Language Enabled Airman Program. It 
took four years of intense Academy training to produce an 
individual with the skills and knowledge she possesses. 
Discharging and requiring her to pay back her scholarship – and 
thus waiting at least another four years to replace her – does 
not benefit the Air Force. 

 

In conclusion, the Panel failed to carefully exercise the “whole 
person” standard and, in its rush to review 50 eliminee 
applications the first time and 48 the second time, blindly 
adopted her commander’s flawed reasoning. The Panel failed to 
consider alternative career fields, the applicant’s “in demand” 
mastery of both dialects of Chinese, and her proven exceptional 
intelligence, dedication, integrity, teamwork, and discipline are 
all factors attesting to the fact that she should be 
reclassified. 

 

In support of her request, the applicant provides a counsel’s 
brief with 10 attachments, which include documents related to her 
training elimination and reclassification board. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 


On 25 May 11, the applicant graduated from the USAFA and upon 
graduation, was commissioned a second lieutenant in the (13S) 
Space and Missile career field. 

 

Prior to commissioning, she was given a Space and Missile 
Operations Duty (SMOD) physical (4 Mar 11), as a prerequisite for 
maintaining her specialty classification. A key component of the 
SMOD physical is the affirmative willingness to support the 
nuclear mission. Her successful SMOD physical completion 
demonstrated her acceptance and willingness to execute the 
nuclear mission. 

 

In Oct 11, at the inception of training, she was presented with a 
Statement of Personal Commitment where she was to certify her 
understanding and agreement with “performing duties involving the 
operation of nuclear-armed ICBMs.” 

 

On 11 Oct 11, she self-eliminated based upon her unwillingness to 
execute the nuclear mission. 

 

On 14 Dec 11, the Panel submitted a recommendation against 
reclassification to the Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC) 
Commander, who serves as the reclassification and discharge 
authority. 

 

On 30 Jan 12, the AFPC Commander approved the Panel 
recommendation and, without providing any reasoning, the Chief of 
Accessions and Service Commitments informed the applicant that 
she would be discharged from active duty effective approximately 
19 Mar 12, and that she had to reimburse the government for the 
unserved portion of the amount expended on educational 
assistance. An inquiry was made into this decision, and a new 
IST Reclassification panel was held on 15 Fen 12, with a decision 
on 20 Mar 12. The applicant was again not selected for 
reclassification, and was subject to involuntary discharge on 
6 May 12. 

 

On 6 May 12, the applicant was honorably discharged in the grade 
of second lieutenant, by reason of failure to complete a course 
of instruction. 

 

In accordance with Title 10 United States Code, Section 2005 
(10 USC 2005), a member who does not complete the active duty 
service commitment established in return for the cost of their 
education is subject to recoupment. Only in cases where it is 
determined the inability to complete the commitment was not 
within the member’s control may the reclassification/discharge 
authority request the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel 
Council (SAFPC), acting on behalf of the SECAF, consider a 
recoupment waiver. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 


 

AFPC/DPSIP makes no recommendation. DPSIP states that newly 
accessed officers eliminated from IST are considered by a Panel 
of senior officers at AFPC for the purpose of recommending 
reclassification or discharge to the Secretary of the Air Force’s 
duly appointed officer accession reclassification/discharge 
authority—the Air Force Personnel Center Commander. 

 

Panel members are briefed on their responsibility to review all 
records based upon a whole person concept. 

 

On 14 Dec 11, Panel members reviewed her application, along with 
40 other officers eliminated from IST during the same period, 
using the “whole person” concept. All reclassification 
submissions contain the same data, a commander recommendation, a 
personal statement from the member, and a summary of education 
and qualifications, and the reason for elimination. The Panel 
reviews all information submitted in the member’s application and 
develops an independent recommendation for reclassification or 
discharge. The applicant was one of four officers on this panel 
recommended for discharge. The reclassification/discharge 
authority reviews the panel results with special interest and 
attention paid to the records of those recommended for discharge. 
The applicant’s discharge recommendation was approved and she was 
officially notified of the decision. 

 

The applicant self-eliminated from IST, and as a result of her 
self-elimination, her ability to complete her active duty service 
commitment (ADSC) associated with her scholarship was deemed 
within her control and therefore she is legally subject to 
recoupment. However, as a prior enlisted member of the Air 
Force, she enjoys the legal right to return to enlisted status 
and may serve the remaining portion of her ADSC in that capacity, 
thereby negating the requirement to repay the pro-rata share of 
the unserved ADSC to the United States government. She was 
informed of this right. 

 

Following announcement of the decision to discharge in Jan 12, an 
anomaly was discovered, in that at the time of this panel, the 
policy regarding the inclusion of letters of recommendation was 
under revision. Although the official policy was not changed 
until 23 Dec 11, the applicant was allowed to submit letters of 
recommendation for consideration on this panel. In all, she 
submitted six (6) letters in addition to her commander’s 
comments. The policy change was anticipated to restrict the 
number of letters of recommendation to three (3). As such, the 
AFPC/DPSIP staff reviewed each of the applicant’s letters and 
selected the three that best supported her reclassification for 
inclusion in her package. DPSIP states they acted without 
authority to both include the letters and to select the “best” 
three letters without consulting with the applicant. Therefore, 
with the approval of the Panel President, the Chief, of the 
Accessions Division offered the applicant an opportunity for 
reconsideration. He contacted the applicant and her chain of 


command on 13 Feb 12, to inform the applicant of her options. 
The applicant accepted the opportunity and provided updated 
information, along with three (3) letters of recommendation for 
inclusion in her package. The Panel reconsidered the applicant’s 
reclassification package along with 45 other officers on 15 Feb 
12. This review was conducted independent of the Panel’s 
recommendation of 14 Dec 12. The Panel members arrived at the 
decision to discharge the applicant and six (6) other officers 
based upon the entirety of the reclassification application 
package. The applicant was recommended for recoupment IAW 
10 USC, Section 2005, based upon the reason for her training 
elimination. The discharge authority approved the Panel 
recommendation and she was notified on 21 Mar 12. 

 

The applicant had the legal right to return to enlisted status in 
the last grade held prior to her separation for the purpose of 
pursuing a commission as a military officer. She had six months 
from her date of separation (May 12) to request enlistment. Had 
she elected to exercise this right, she would have served the 
remaining ADSC associated with her USAFA scholarship as an 
enlisted member, and would not have been required to repay the 
pro-rata share of the unserved portion association with her 
education. 

 

The complete DPSIP evaluation is at Exhibit B. 

 

AFPC/JA recommends denial. JA states that they agree with the 
advisory written by DPSIP, and only adds there is generally a 
strong presumption in the law that administrators of the 
military, like other government officials, discharge their duties 
lawfully and in good faith. This presumption can only be 
rebutted by cogent and clearly convincing evidence (emphasis 
added) that the officials’ actions were undertaken in bad faith. Duncan v. United States, 22 Cl. Ct.1 (1990) affd 949 F.2d 1134. 
See also Sanders v. United States, 594 F.2d 804 (1979). 

 

In this case, the IST reclassification panel that met and 
considered the applicant pursuant to AFPCI 36-112 were briefed 
that they were to utilize the “whole person concept” in their 
deliberations, they were sworn, and they certified that they 
complied with AFPCI 36-112 in making their recommendations. In 
the absence of evidence (emphasis added) to the contrary, they 
are entitled to the presumption that they carried out their 
duties properly and in accordance with their oath. The applicant 
and her attorney have offered nothing but their own opinion as to 
what occurred in an attempt to counter that presumption; that is 
insufficient. JA opines the applicant and her attorney have 
failed to prove an error or injustice. 

 

The complete JA evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 


 

The Board’s conclusion there was no error in connection with 
eliminating the applicant from the Air Force is based on a 
misunderstanding of her position in this case, and therefore, is 
in error. 

 

It is certainly true she represented her affirmative willingness 
to support the nuclear mission in her pre-commissioning physical 
examination questionnaire. She has never said that she is 
unwilling to support that mission. She indicated something very 
different in her subsequent answer to a questionnaire about her 
personally launching a nuclear device. Her point is that while 
she supports the nuclear mission, she honestly was concerned that 
she would hesitate if given an order to launch a nuclear weapon. 
That distinction is real and her response demonstrated uncommon 
candor. 

 

While many officers may indicate a willingness to launch a 
nuclear device as a hypothetical matter in order to advance in 
the Air Force, thinking that the occurrence of such a launch 
would be remote, she answered the question honestly. As 
demonstrated in her original submission, she has substantial 
talents and a strong willingness to serve in other areas of the 
Air Force. Because she answered with uncommon honesty, and her 
answer was either misunderstood, or unfairly interpreted, her 
elimination from the Air Force was beyond her control. She was 
willing, ready and able to serve as an officer in the Air Force. 
The Air Force needs more officers who are willing to be honest 
about their subjective concerns, and have her talents and 
commitment. 

 

It is respectfully submitted that she should not have been 
eliminated from the Air Force and should not be subject to 
recoupment because she honestly represented her subjective state 
of mind with respect to personally launching a nuclear weapon. 
Her choice was to be dishonest or honestly state her subjective 
state of mind. To say that because she had a choice to be 
dishonest, and did not make that choice, she, therefore, should 
be eliminated from the Air Force and face a recoupment is not 
only an error, it undermines the values of the Air Force and this 
Country. 

 

The Counsel's complete response 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. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of error or injustice warranting 
partial relief. The applicant is requesting to be retained in 
the Air Force, contending that her commander’s recommendation to 
the Initial Skills Training (IST) Reclassification Board was 
biased and unfair. In this regard, the applicant states that her 
commander took the extreme position that since she had 
reservations regarding her ability to launch weapons of mass 
destruction, without hesitation, that she was unfit to serve in 
the Air Force in any capacity. The applicant also contends the 
Panel members failed to consider other factors which demonstrate 
her potential to serve as an officer in the Air Force, i.e.; her 
student statement and reason for elimination, her potential to 
develop and contribute in another career field, and her foreign 
language skills. After carefully reviewing the evidence of 
record, and taking into consideration the comments of the Air 
Force offices of primary responsibility, we believe partial 
relief is warranted in this case. In this respect, we note that 
while we are aware that the IST Reclassification Panel members 
are briefed on their responsibility to review all records based 
on the whole person concept, we find her commander’s 
recommendation letter, rendered after observing her for only a 
couple of weeks, to be biased and based on the applicant’s 
objections to the use of nuclear weapons. In view of this, we 
believe she was denied fair and equitable consideration for 
reclassification and retention by the IST Reclassification Panel. 
Therefore, we recommend the applicant’s records be sent to 
another reclassification panel, and that any references in the 
commander’s letter and the AETC Form 125A relating to her 
objections to the use of nuclear weapons be redacted. 
Accordingly, we recommend her records be corrected as indicated 
below. 

 

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 issue involved. 
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: 

 

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force 
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that any and all 
references to her objections to the use of nuclear weapons, be 
removed from the commander’s letter of 14 Oct 11 and the Air 
Education Training Command Form 125A, Record of Administrative 
Training Action, dated 18 Oct 11. 

 

It is further recommended that the record be corrected to show 
that competent authority directed that her record be considered 
for reclassification and retention by an Initial Skills Training 
Reclassification Board. 

 


_________________________________________________________________ 

 

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2012-01941 in Executive Session on 28 Feb 13, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

, Panel Chair 

, Member 

, Member 

 

All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The 
following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number 
BC-2012-01941 was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 4 May 12, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSIP, dated 18 Jun 12. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 21 Jun 12. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Jul 12. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, Counsel, dated 18 Jul 12. 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair 

________________________