RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2014-00309
		
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected as follows:

	1.  The AF Form 457, Training Report (TR), rendered for the 
period 5 Feb 08 through 17 Feb 10 and associated documents to 
include the Drop On Request (DOR) be removed from his records 
(administratively resolved).

	2.  He be reinstated to Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA) 
assignment.

	3.  He be reinstated in the RPA Fundamentals Course.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The TR in question contains negative comments and was not referred 
in accordance with AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation 
Systems.  The negative comments are an attack on his personal and 
religious beliefs, which is prohibited under the provisions of the 
governing AFI.

His First Amendment rights of freedom of religion were violated 
when he was not provided an opportunity to seek counsel with the 
Chaplain for a determination as to whether the duties of an RPA 
assignment were within the Just War Theory of his faith.  

His previous combat duty performance should have obviated the 
recommendation to not retain him on active duty.

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 16 Nov 01, the applicant enlisted in the Air Force Reserve.  He 
was honorably discharged and was appointed as a second lieutenant 
in the Ready Reserve on 15 May 04. 

Aeronautical Order 284, dated 14 Jan 09, reflects the applicant 
entered the Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training (SUPT).

On 18 Feb 10, the applicant self-eliminated (Drop on Request 
(DOR)) from SUPT.

The contested TR noted the applicant DOR from SUPT because he was 
unwilling to accept a combat assignment.  It was recommended that 
he not be given another AFSC, he be released from active duty, or 
if retained he be given an assignment based on Air Force needs in 
a non-operational position.

On 22 Feb 10, the applicant was permanently disenrolled from SUPT.

On 4 Jun 10, the applicant was furnished an honorable discharge, 
and was credited with 5 years, 10 months, and 22 days of active 
service.

The applicant is currently serving as a traditional (part-time) 
reservist in the grade of captain (O-3).

On 24 Feb 15, the applicant notified the Board staff that the 
contested TR was removed from his record administratively and 
replaced with a Letter of Evaluation (LOE) by order of the Chief 
of Staff, USAF (Exhibit G).


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPANH recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an 
error or injustice to warrant removal of the contested TR.  The 
applicant’s training record indicates he is not claiming 
conscientious objector status, or opposed to his fellow service 
members taking part in direct combat but he is unwilling to accept 
an assignment where he would be required to directly engage in 
killing the enemy.  It is clear the applicant is a person of 
integrity and his personal ethics regarding the notion of killing 
for one’s country is a minefield of contradictions and unresolved 
internal dilemmas.  His willingness to serve is conditional on 
specific assignments and, therefore, he cannot be depended on to 
lead warrior-airmen.

While ethics can be based on other than religious beliefs, there 
is no mention of the applicant’s religion by the evaluator in the 
contested report.  Furthermore, there is nothing in the contested 
report that attacks the applicant’s personal religious beliefs.  
The applicant knew the implications of the assignment and had 
ample time to consult with a chaplain during training.

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

AFPC/DPSID recommends approving the removal of the contested 
report.  The contested report violated the governing regulations 
in place at the time and was written in error.

The applicant was separated from active duty and did not file an 
appeal with the Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAB).  However, 
it is noted the contested report has been a matter of record for 
four years.

The contested TR contained vague and derogatory comments and there 
is no proof the report was referred in accordance with the 
governing instruction.  According to AFI 36-2406, a performance 
report is referred when the comments in the report, or 
attachments, are derogatory in nature, imply or refer to behavior 
not compatible with or not meeting minimum acceptable standards of 
personal or professional conduct, character, judgment or 
integrity, and or refer to disciplinary actions.  The AFI further 
states non-specific or vague comments regarding the individual’s 
behavior or performance are not allowed.  

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AETC/A3F-TPM recommends denial of the applicant’s request for 
reinstatement or reentry to RPA training.

Due a demand to support RPA world-wide operations, assignments 
were allotted to fixed-wing pilot training graduates from 2009-
2012.  In 2009, the Air Force started a new Undergraduate RPA 
Training (URT) pipeline to produce RPA-only pilots.

Under the provisions of AFI 36-2205, Applying for Flying, Air 
Battle Manager, and Astronaut Programs, individuals eliminated 
from flying training are ineligible to apply for further flying 
training.

The assignments for pilot training graduates are based on the 
needs of the Air Force, assignment availability and student 
desires.  Students are briefed throughout their training to ensure 
they are familiar with the process.

The Merit Assignment Selection System (MASS) ranking is used at 
the end of primary training to determine which advanced track 
training the student will be assigned to.  

The student follow-on training assignment process is time-
sensitive as assignments are made two-weeks prior to graduation.  
Students are re-briefed on the assignment process and how to 
complete the AF IMT 3849, PME/AFIT/RTFB/Officer Worksheet (dream 
sheet).  Availability of assignments will vary in number and type 
of aircraft.  The wing/units are informed no later than 11 days 
prior to assignment of what type of aircraft will be available.  

The applicant has requested to be reinstated into the RPA 
Fundamentals Course (RFC).  The RFC is the last course in the 
undergraduate RPA pipeline.  Only officers with a pilot rating are 
eligible for direct entry into RFC.  The applicant is not eligible 
for direct entry into RFC due to him not completing pilot 
training.  The applicant would need to complete the entire 
Undergraduate RPA Training followed by RFC before attending RPA 
formal training.

While it seems the timeframe the applicant was allotted to provide 
a decision regarding the assignment was unreasonable, he was aware 
that the drop would include RPA assignments.

If the applicant had any concerns or questions regarding his 
participation in combat, he should have resolved them prior to 
taking the oath of office at commissioning, before entering pilot 
training, or at the very latest before completion of his dream 
sheet.

It has been more than four years since the applicant’s elimination 
from pilot training and as a result of this delay individual 
witnesses to the events leading to his removal from training are 
now no longer on station or available for comment.

A complete copy of the AETC/A3F-TPM evaluation is at Exhibit E.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 6 Jan 15 for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit F).  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.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice.  The applicant 
is requesting reinstatement into a Remotely Piloted Aircraft 
course and assignment.  We took notice of the applicant's complete 
submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree 
with the opinion and the recommendation of the AETC/A3F-TPM 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 elected to withdraw from training and declined an 
assignment and, according to Air Force policy, individuals who 
self-eliminate from training are ineligible for further flying 
training.  Furthermore, the applicant has not presented any 
evidence, other than his own assertions, that would convince us 
that he was treated differently than other similarly situated 
individuals.  As for his request for removal of the contested 
Training Report, we note the contested report has been replaced 
with a Letter of Evaluation by direction of the Air Force Chief of 
Staff.  Therefore, we find no basis to recommend granting relief 
beyond that rendered administratively.  


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-2014-00309 in Executive Session on 24 Feb 15 and 6 Mar 15 under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 5 Jan 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPANH, dated 28 Feb 14.
	Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSID, dated 3 Nov 14, w/atch.
	Exhibit E.  Memorandum, AETC/A3F-TPM, dated 24 Nov 14
	            w/atchs.
	Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Jan 15.
	Exhibit G.  Email, Applicant, dated 24 Feb 15, w/atch.