RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-04388

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO 



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  He be reinstated in the Air Force as a first lieutenant 
(1Lt) or an enlisted airman.

2.  The recoupment of his Air Force Reserve Officer Training 
Corps (AFROTC) scholarship be waived.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His discharge was unjust.  The way he has been treated has 
negatively impacted him and the Air Force, and has set a 
dangerous precedent for future pilot students who have doubts 
about their career in aviation.  While attending Initial Flight 
Screening (IFS) he started doubting his decision to attend pilot 
training.  After graduating from and starting his Undergraduate 
Pilot Training (UPT) he realized his interests did not align 
with a career in aviation.  He believes he would better serve 
the Air Force in another Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) that 
was not related to aviation.  After speaking with his superiors, 
he decided to self-eliminate from pilot training.

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 26 Aug 10, the applicant received a scholarship from the Air 
Force to participate in the AFROTC program at Valdosta State 
University.  On 2 Mar 11, his AFROTC contract was amended to 
change his officer categorization to pilot.

On 5 May 12, the applicant was commissioned as a second 
lieutenant (O-1).

The applicant self-eliminated prior to the start of his pilot 
training.  On 18 Jan 13, the applicant requested to be retained 
and reclassified into another career field.

On 14 Feb 13, the Initial Skills Training (IST) reclassification 
panel considered the applicant’s request and recommended he be 
discharged in lieu of reclassification and directed he reimburse 
the government for the unserved portion of the commitment he 
incurred due to the cost expended on his education.

On 18 Apr 13, the applicant was honorably discharged and 
credited with 11 months and 10 days of total active service. 

The applicant is currently serving in the Air Force Reserve in 
the grade of staff sergeant (E-5).


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSIP recommends denial of the portion of the applicant’s 
request for reinstatement into the Air Force.  Air Force 
officers who are eliminated from their IST, regardless of 
whether self-initiated, before or after training commences, to 
include initial training declination, will be considered for 
reclassification contingent on current Air Force requirements.  
The applicant was considered for retention and reclassification 
by the IST panel; however, the panel recommended the applicant 
be discharged.

In addition, the panel considered recoupment of the pro-rata 
portion of his AFROTC scholarship associated with the unserved 
portion of his active duty service commitment (ADSC) associated 
with the scholarship.  Per Title 10 USC, Section 2005 requires 
recoupment of the pro-rata share of the unearned portion of his 
scholarship as a result of his inability to complete the ADSC 
for his education.  The only way recoupment may be waived is if 
the inability to complete his ADSC is deemed beyond his control.  
The applicant self-eliminated from training and both the IST 
panel and discharge authority determined his inability to 
complete his ADSC was completely within his control.  Therefore, 
the Air Force is legally required to direct recoupment of the 
pro-rata share of the scholarship representing the unserved 
portion of his ADSC.

The applicant can apply to the Secretary of the Air Force 
Remission Board (SAFRB) for remission of his debt to Air Force.

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


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

According to AFPAM 36-2407, Applicant’s Guide to the Air Force 
Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR), the burden is 
on the applicant to explain what happened and why it is an error 
or injustice.  Although, AFPC/DPSIP correctly stated the IST 
panel acted without error from an administrative standpoint, 
they failed to address that the board does not simply consider 
administrative errors, but seeks remedy to incidents of 
injustice.  Although his initial request stated why he believes 
his involuntary discharge was unjust, and he provided a 
supporting statement from his current squadron commander 
indicating that his discharge was unjust and that it had a 
negative impact on the Air Force, AFPC/DPSIP did not address the 
injustice aspect of his involuntary separation.  While arguments 
were provided on the procedural validity of the IST panel, there 
were no arguments on the substance of the IST panel’s decision.  
He asks the Board to treat AFPC/DPSIP omission as a concession 
to the merits of his argument concerning the injustice of his 
involuntary separation.

His decision to request reclassification was based on the advice 
and recommendations from his superiors and his commitment to the 
Core Values of the Air Force.  He has not broken any rules or 
committed any crimes that would make him ineligible to serve in 
the Air Force.  He is physically fit, healthy, and motivated to 
serve.  He has a track record of excellence.  The only reason he 
is not serving in the Air Force is the IST panel decided not to 
use him for an existing vacant position for which he is 
qualified.

He did not file an appeal through the Air Force Remissions Board 
because his notification for his involuntary discharge indicated 
he should appeal through the AFBCMR.  He has paid back the Air 
Force for the scholarship and would like to be reimbursed for 
the payment.

Since his initial request he has enlisted with the Air Force 
Reserve.  This demonstrates his commitment to the Air Force and 
shows the Air Force is benefitting from the AFROTC education he 
received. 

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E.


THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has not 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.  The applicant 
argues that his inability to be reclassified and subsequent 
involuntary discharge makes him the victim of an 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 basis for our conclusion that the applicant has 
not been the victim of an error or injustice.  The applicant 
concedes there was no administrative error regarding his 
elimination and the subsequent denial of his reclassification 
request, but argues that relief should be granted because he is 
the victim of an injustice.  However, other than his own 
assertions, he has not presented any evidence that would 
convince us that he was treated differently than other similarly 
situated individuals.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to 
the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief 
sought in this application.

4.  In regards to the portion of the applicant’s request for 
waiver of the recoupment his debt for his AFROTC scholarship; we 
note this Board is the highest administrative level of appeal 
within the Air Force.  As such, an applicant must first exhaust 
all available avenues of administrative relief provided by 
existing law or regulations prior to seeking relief before this 
Board, as required by the governing Air Force Instruction.  The 
Air Force office of primary responsibility has reviewed this 
application and indicated there is an available avenue of 
administrative relief the applicant has not first pursued.  In 
view of this, we find this aspect of the applicant’s request is 
not ripe for adjudication at this level, as there exists a 
subordinate level of appeal that has not first been depleted.  
Therefore, in view of the above, 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-2013-04388 in Executive Session on 2 Sep 14, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member




The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2013-04388 was considered:
	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 Oct 13, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIP, dated 10 Mar 14.
Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 May 14.
Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, undated.







2