RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-05646

					COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO 



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The financial debt he incurred as the result of being involuntary discharged be set aside.  



APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was unjustly discharged.  He lost confidence in his ability to fly, and his personal and professional integrity dictated his self-elimination from pilot training.  He was a USAFA graduate, an officer in good standing with no disciplinary problems, and had both his command’s recommendation to retain him and the ability and desire to continue to serve.  However, he was involuntarily discharged and unjustly burdened with significant financial debt.  At the time of his discharge, the country was facing a fiscal crisis (“fiscal cliff” and “sequestration”) and that led to the reclassification board’s decision to recoup the debt rather than a valid assessment of his situation.     

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



STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 23 May 12, after graduating from the United States Air Force Academy.  

On 14 Feb 13, after self-eliminating from pilot training, an Officer Initial Skills Training (IST) Reclassification Panel recommended the applicant be discharged from the Air Force, and that he repay $148,938 for the unserved portion of the active duty service commitment (ADSC) he incurred due to his Air Force Academy scholarship. 

On 18 Apr 13, the applicant was furnished an honorable discharge, with an Narrative Reason for Separation of “Involuntary Separation Due to Initial Technical Training Elimination,” and was credited with 10 months and 26 days of active service. 

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C.   



AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSIP recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice.  Line of the Air Force officers who are eliminated from their Initial Skill Training (IST), whether elimination was self-initiated or not, and whether before or after training commences (to include initial training declination), will be considered for reclassification contingent upon the needs of the Air Force.  On 14 Feb 13, the Air Force Line Officer IST Reclassification Panel considered the applicant’s desires and capabilities, commander recommendations, and ultimately recommended him for discharge.  The discharge authority approved the panel recommendation, directing the applicant’s discharge.  Per Title 10 USC, §2005, recoupment of the pro-rata share of an unserved ADSC will be sought in all cases except in those where the inability to complete the commitment is deemed not in the member’s control.  Based upon the applicant’s self-elimination from training, the 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 unserved ADSC associated with the applicant’s scholarship.  

Per Air Force Instruction 36-3034, Remission of Indebtedness, the applicant may apply to the Secretary of the Air Force Remission Board (SAFRB) for remission of his debt to the Air Force.  The applicant has not exhausted all administrative remedies for relief of his debt.  

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



APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

He has been given contradicting guidance.  He applied to the AFBCMR due to the guidance provided in the AFPC/DPSIP memorandum from Dec 12 telling him he could apply to the AFBCMR and DFAS’s e-mail stating an AFBCMR appeal was his only recourse.  Then, the 27 Feb 13 AFPC/DPSIP recommendation to the BCMR was to deny his request because he failed to exhaust all administrative remedies by not first applying to the Remission Board.  These are contradictory.  He does not want to limit himself to one bite at the apple.  All he is asking for is a fair review (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.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  In this respect, 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 application is not ripe for adjudication at this level, as there exists a subordinate level of appeal that has not first been depleted.  While we note the applicant’s concern that he not be limited to “one bite at the apple,” should this Board make a final decision on this case before the applicant has exhausted his administrative remedies, said remedies would be forever unavailable to the applicant.    Therefore, in order to ensure the applicant is afforded the most consideration possible, he should exhaust his available administrative remedies.  Once he has exhausted said remedy, should he still believe he is the victim of an error or injustice, he may request reconsideration of his request by this Board.  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-2013-05646 in Executive Session on 4 Nov 14 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 3 Dec 13, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSIP, dated 2 Jan 14.
Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 Jan 14.
Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 30 Jan 14.

						










4





FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – PRIVACY ACT OF 1974


FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – PRIVACY ACT OF 1974
4

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – PRIVACY ACT OF 1974


FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – PRIVACY ACT OF 1974
4