RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-05744

	COUNSEL:  

						HEARING DESIRED:  YES 


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  The results of the 12-06 Officer Initial Skills Training (IST) 
Reclassification Panel be amended to show that he was selected for 
a career field for which he was qualified.

2.  The Training Eliminee Reclassification memorandum submitted 
for the 12-06 and 13-02 Officer IST Panels be amended to remove 
any reference that he failed to disclose his medical condition.

3.  In the alternative, the results of the 13-02 IST 
Reclassification Panel be voided.

4.  His corrected record meet a new IST Reclassification Panel.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

In a 10-page legal brief, the applicant’s counsel presents the 
following major contentions:

The recorder for the applicant’s first elimination panel 
improperly listed 13M (Airfield Operations) as one of his eligible 
career fields.

The medical qualifications for the 13S (Space and Missile 
Operations) and 13M career fields are substantially similar.

Based on his disqualification from the 13S career field, the 
recorder should have known he would have been disqualified from 
the 13M career field given the similarities in the two career 
fields.

Had the first panel been provided the proper information, it would 
have placed the applicant in an available career field slot in the 
14N (Intelligence) or 21A (Aircraft Maintenance) career fields.

AFPCI 36-122, Line Officer IST Reclassification Procedures states 
“the reclassification and separation authority is the commander 
not the executive director.”  Therefore, the applicant’s 
disqualification and subsequent separation were not proper and 
should be voided.   

His records contained a significant and prejudicial error when 
they met the two IST Panels.  On both recommendation memoranda, 
the applicant’s commander stated he failed to disclose his medical 
status.  However, this is not true.  He reported the information 
and did not tell the commander anything different.  Had the 
applicant’s commander reviewed his medical record he would have 
seen the applicant reported his Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) 
during his Space and Missile Operations Duty (SMOD) physical pre-
commissioning and then reported it again when he sought further 
treatment for ADD.  Because of this error, the 13-02 IST Panel 
recommended the applicant be discharged from the Air Force.  

In support of his requests, the applicant provides copies of the 
12-06 and 13-02 IST Panel Worksheets, email communiques’, 
memorandums, and various other documents associated with his 
appeal.

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 2 Dec 10, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force.

According to a letter dated 26 Apr 12, from the applicant’s 
commander to AFPC/DPSIP, the applicant was eliminated from the 
Space and Missile Operations training.  In paragraph 3B of the 
letter the commander noted that the applicant “has demonstrated 
some of the qualities of an Air Force officer.  However, he also 
admits to withholding information regarding his medical status, 
both pre-commissioning and while he was in missile training.”  In 
paragraph 3C, the commander notes the applicant was diagnosed with 
a condition that limited his ability to concentrate and caused him 
to make poor decisions.  The commander stated that his condition 
had improved with medication; however, the medication disqualified 
him from performing SMOD.  The commander rated his potential for 
success as “lower than his peers.”

According to AETC Form 125A, Record of Administrative Training 
Action, dated 25 and 27 Apr 2012, the applicant’s commander noted 
in Section 4, that he did not meet SMOD/PRP standards and would 
not be able to perform duties related to PRP.  The commander 
stated the applicant was diagnosed with a medical condition that 
limited his ability to focus and concentrate.  The commander also 
recommended the applicant be retained and reclassified according 
to the needs of the Air Force. 

According to the applicant’s Student Information memorandum, dated 
29 May 12, the following AFSCs were listed, in order of preference 
as the AFSCs that he was interested in being reclassified into: 
64P, Contracting; 38F, Force Support; 13M; 14N and 15W (Weather).  

On 22 Feb 13, the applicant was honorably discharged by reason of 
Failure to Complete a Course of Instruction.  He was credited with 
2 years, 2 months and 21 days of total active service.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
described in the memoranda prepared by the Air Force Office of 
Primary Responsibility (OPR), which is included at Exhibit C.


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSI recommends approval.  It appears that an error or 
injustice may have occurred with this applicant's IST 
reclassification opportunity.  Based on documents provided by the 
applicant, it is clear he reported his Attention Deficit Disorder 
(ADD) when he was initially screened for his SMOD physical on 
18 Feb 10, prior to his commissioning on 6 Jun 10. The result of 
the screening for the SMOD physical indicated he was medically 
cleared for entry into the 13S1C career field.  It appears the 
statement by the commander in paragraph 3B of the "Training 
Eliminee - Reclassification Board Consideration" for both the 12-
06 and 13-02 IST panels was incorrect. 

Line of the Air Force officers who are eliminated from their IST, 
will be considered for reclassification contingent on current Air 
Force requirements.  The recorder is responsible for verifying an 
applicant’s ability to meet the academic requirements, and to some 
extent the medical requirements for each AFSC which the IST Panel 
may recommend reclassification.  

The medical information disqualifying the applicant was not 
available to the recorder when the IST package was received.  
Based on his academic qualifications and volunteer status, the 
applicant was identified to the panel members as qualified to be 
reclassified into 13M, 14N and 21A career fields.  

On 15 Aug 12, the IST Panel 12-06, considered the applicant’s 
desires and capabilities, commander recommendations, and 
ultimately recommended him for reclassification into the 
13M1 (Airfield Operations) career field.  The reclassification 
authority approved the panel’s recommendation, directing the 
applicant be reclassified on 21 Aug 12.  

On 6 Nov 12, an updated package for IST Panel 13-02 was received 
by DPSIP.  The memorandum “Training Eliminee – Reclassification 
Board Consideration” was edited to reflect that the medication the 
applicant was prescribed made him not medically qualified for the 
13M career field.  The recorder determined the applicant was 
qualified to be reclassified into 14N, 21A or 38P (Personnel).   

On 13 Dec 12, the IST Panel 13-02, considered the applicant’s 
desires and capabilities, commander recommendations, and 
ultimately recommended him for discharge.  The reclassification 
authority approved the panel’s recommendation, directing the 
applicant be discharged on 21 Dec 12.  

DPSI recommends the Board direct the applicant’s record be 
corrected to show that any and all references to his medical 
condition and the withholding of information about his medical 
condition be removed from paragraph 3B and 3C of the updated 
Training Eliminee letter received by AFPC/DPSIP on 6 Nov 12 and 
Section 4 of the AETC Form 125A, Record of Administrative Action, 
dated 27 Apr 12.  The results of the 13 Dec 12, Air Force Line 
Officer IST Panel 13-02, that relate to the applicant be voided.  
His corrected record be considered for reclassification and 
retention by an IST Reclassification Board.  

The complete DPSI 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 30 May 14, for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D).  
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.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate 
the existence of an error or injustice. After carefully reviewing 
this application, we agree with the opinion of the Air Force 
Office of Primary Responsibility (OPR) and adopt the rationale 
expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has 
been the victim of either an error or an injustice.  Although the 
OPR recommends the applicant’s record be considered for 
reclassification and retention by an IST Reclassification Board, 
they do not specify which AFSC.  Based on the applicant’s academic 
qualifications and volunteer status the 12-06 Officer IST Panel 
identified the applicant as being qualified for reclassification 
into the 13M, 14N or 21A career fields.  According to the 
applicant’s Student Information memorandum, dated 29 May 12, the 
only AFSC he was interested in being reclassified into that he was 
qualified for was 14N.  Therefore, were it not for the statements 
by his commander regarding his medical condition, we believe the 
applicant more likely than not would have been recommended for 
reclassification into AFSC 14N by the 12-06 Officer IST Panel.   
Therefore, , we recommend the applicant’s records be corrected to 
reflect that he was selected for the 14N career field by the 12-
06 Officer IST Panel and the erroneous statements by his commander 
regarding his medical condition be removed.  Accordingly, we 
recommend the applicant’s 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 pour understanding of the issues 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:

	a.  The results of the 12-06 Officer IST Panel be corrected 
to show he was selected for the 14N, career field.  

	b.  All references to his medical condition and the 
withholding of information about his medical condition be removed 
from paragraph 3B and 3C of the updated Training Eliminee letter 
and the AETC Form 125A, Record of Administration Action, section 
4, dated 27 April 2012.


The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number 
BC-2013-05744 in Executive Session on 9 Sep 14, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

All members voted to correct the records as recommended:  The 
following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 13 Dec 13, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSI, dated 7 May 14. 
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 May 14.


5