RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00142

 			COUNSEL:  NONE

			HEARING DESIRED:  YES 


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her separation code be changed to Secretarial Authority, to allow 
her to reenter the service as a commissioned officer.

She be allowed entry into the Air Force as an active duty, reserve 
or Air National Guard officer.

Her debt be terminated.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was removed from the Air Force after failing the Security 
Forces Basic Officers Course.  She is now in debt to the 
government because she received ROTC educational benefits.  

She graduated from college with honors; specifically, she was the 
sole Valedictorian of her class.  She was also a member of several 
local and national organizations.  She worked while in college and 
succeeded in ROTC.  

While in the Security Forces Basic Officers Course, she 
exemplified core values.  After her discharge she continued to 
move forward despite the setbacks and she continued to meet her 
financial obligations.  

With all due respect, she believes her commander and others 
misjudged her.  She was told at the end of the course that she was 
destined to work at McDonalds.  She believes she was not properly 
groomed for success; yet, she takes responsibility for her actions 
throughout her short eight month career.    

She was never allowed the opportunity to speak with the commanders 
that recommended her release.  She was also not offered 
reclassification although the regulations state she should have 
had that opportunity as her release was not due to misconduct.  

She believes regulations were not followed and only asks for the 
opportunity to serve in a different career field.  

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is a former member of the Air Force who served from 
30 September 2012 through 5 June 2013.  

In March, the applicant filed a complaint with the Inspector 
General.  That complaint was transferred to the commander for 
disposition.   The commander initiated a Commander Directed 
Investigation (CDI) after allegations of cruelty, oppression, 
maltreatment and dereliction of duty against the training cadre 
and the commander.  Those allegations were unsubstantiated.  

The CDI did state, however, the commander failed to ensure 
compliance with all applicable requirements as outlined in AETC 
36-2215, Technical and Basic Military Training Administration, 
before signing and approving the 125A, Record of Administrative 
Training Action by making a discharge recommendation that was not 
within the purview of the training squadron.  Accordingly, the 
applicant was issued a corrected AETC Form 125A.  This error was 
found to be an administrative oversight and lack of familiarity 
with procedures rather than dereliction of duty.

According to AFPC/DPSOR, the applicant was notified by her 
commander that she was being removed from the Security Forces 
Basic Officer Course for various performance deficiencies.   She 
acknowledged receipt of the notification of removal and possible 
discharge.  On 11 April 2013, the applicant's record was 
considered, but not selected for reclassification.

On 5 June 13, the applicant was separated from the Air Force 
under the provisions of AFI 36-3207, Separating Commissioned 
Officers, para 3.13 (Officers who Don't Complete Initial 
Training, Formal Upgrade, or Certification Training).  Her 
narrative reason for separation was listed as failure to complete 
a course of instruction and her SPD cod was listed as “JHF.”  Her 
service was characterized as honorable.  She was credited with 
8 months and 6 days of active duty 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/DPSOR recommends denial.  The applicant's commander 
completed AETC Form 125A to notify the applicant that she 
was being removed from the Security Forces Basic Officer Course 
for various performance deficiencies.  The applicant acknowledged 
receipt of the notification of removal and possible discharge.  
The applicant's record was considered, but not selected for 
reclassification on 11 April 2013.

A review of the documentation shows the applicant was counseled 
on her responsibilities as class leader but failed to ensure her 
team was prepared and constantly failed to lead the team, 
allowing a squad leader to take the lead in her place.  These 
deficiencies led to her removal from responsibilities as class 
leader.  The chief of the basic officer course indicated that 
the applicant demonstrated several deficiencies with regard to 
leadership, command/control and decision-making.  As a result, 
the applicant was considered but not selected for retention and 
reclassification and was subsequently discharged.  The 
applicant's service characterization, narrative reason for 
separation, and SPD code are correct as reflected on her DD Form 
214.  Therefore, the applicant's discharge is correct and in 
accordance with DoD and Air Force instructions. 

Based on the documentation on file in the master personnel 
records, the discharge to include the SPD code, narrative reason 
for separation and character of service was appropriately 
administered and within the discretion of the discharge 
authority.  The applicant did not provide any evidence that an 
error or injustice occurred in the processing of her discharge.

The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C.

DFAS does not make a recommendation.  DFAS submitted a summary of 
the applicant’s debt which shows she owes an additional $5,737.75.

The complete DFAS evaluation is at Exhibit D.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reiterates that she would like to be reinstated as 
an Air Force officer.  She also states she received the DFAS 
advisory 13 months after her original submission and requests the 
Board takes this into consideration.

The advisory speaks to her involuntary discharge, but fails to 
address the facts surrounding her discharge.  These facts show she 
was wrongfully removed from the course.  For instance, she was not 
given the opportunity to speak with the training commander that 
recommended her removal from the course.  

The officers that completed the paperwork did not adequately 
interpret or use the forms.  By the commanders own admission, they 
were either inadequately trained or did not know how to complete 
the forms.  She complained to the Inspector General about her 
treatment during the course.  She also has medical documentation 
showing she did not feel well between the 26th and the 28th of 
February.  However, she was told she was faking, when in fact; she 
was dehydrated and was stage one hypertensive.  

She is an over-achiever and not a poor performer.  She was never 
deficient in her performance.  She was later offered encouraging 
words and she holds onto those words as motivation.  She hopes the 
Board assists her by reinstating her into the Air Force.

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit F.


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, to include her rebuttal 
comments, in judging the merits of the case and find no evidence 
of an error or injustice which warrants corrective action in this 
case.  The applicant contends that she was never allowed the 
opportunity to speak with the commanders that recommended her 
release, she was not offered reclassification and she believes 
regulations were not followed.  Notwithstanding the applicant’s 
view, we find the applicant has not submitted documentation to 
override the rationale provided by the Air Force office of primary 
responsibility.  With regard to the applicant’s contention that 
she was not allowed to speak with the commanders that recommended 
her release, there was no evidence provided to substantiate this 
claim.  While the record is silent on this issue, based on the 
presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs 
and without evidence to the contrary, we must assume the 
applicant’s discharge was proper and in compliance with 
appropriate regulation and that she was afforded all rights to 
which she was entitled.  With regard to the applicant’s contention 
that she was not offered reclassification, records reflect her 
record was reviewed by a reclassification board and she was not 
selected for reclassification on 11 April 2013.  While we note the 
CDI did find some discrepancies with the completion of AETC Form 
125A by the training squadron by making a recommendation that was 
not within its purview, we note this was found to be an 
administrative oversight and lack of familiarity with procedures 
rather than dereliction of duty.  This discrepancy, however, was 
corrected by issuing the applicant a corrected AETC Form 125A.  
Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air 
Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) and adopt its 
rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has 
not been the victim of an error of injustice.  In the absence of 
evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting 
the requested relief.

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


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-2014-00142 in Executive Session on 24 June 2015 under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:


The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2014-00142 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 20 Nov 13, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 2 Apr 14.
	Exhibit D.  DFAS Summary, undated.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 May 15.
	Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant’s Response, dated 15 May 15, 
        w/atchs.