RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-02598 INDEX CODE:	112.00
XXXXXXX	COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His separation code of “JHF” and narrative reason for separation of "Failure to Complete a Course of Instruction" be changed in order to allow him to be eligible for Veterans benefits.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His separation code and reason for discharge are incorrect. He was not discharged due to failure to complete training but involuntarily separated for the Fiscal Year 2005 Force Shaping Program.

In support of his application, the applicant submits a personal letter, a copy of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release from Active Duty, AF Form 100, Request and Authorization for Separation, and a copy of the Air Force Officers' Training guide.

Applicant's complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant was commissioned as a 2nd Lieutenant on 28 May 2003 after completion of the Air Force Academy.

On 28 February 2004, the applicant entered Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training (SUPT). On 15 December 2004, a Record of Commander's Review Action was initiated eliminating the applicant from pilot training due to flying deficiency. On
3 January 2005, the reviewing authority concurred with the recommendation to disenroll the applicant from pilot training.

On 4 April 2005, the Secretary of the Air Force determined that the applicant should be released from active duty due to his elimination from training. In addition, the Secretary determined that he should not be required to reimburse the United States Government for the pro rata share of his Academy education.

On 15 April 2005, 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) with an honorable discharge, with a separation code of "JHF". He served
1 year, 10 months, and 18 days of active service.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial and states that based on documentation in file; the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. The applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing. A review of the discharge package reveals that the applicant did desire to transfer to the Army through the Blue to Green program; however, his transfer to the Army was not approved. The applicant states he was involuntarily separated under the FY05 Force Shaping program. However, the documentation in his military record clearly shows he was separated by direction of the Secretary of the Air Force for elimination from pilot training.

AFPC/DPSOS's complete evaluation, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit B.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on
19 September 2008 for review and comment within 30 days.	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. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that his separation code and narrative reason should be changed. In this regard, we note that the applicant was discharged due to his elimination from pilot training rather than the FY05 Force Shaping Program. Applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we do not find these uncorroborated assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently convincing to override the rationale provided by the Air Force. Other than his own statement, applicant provides no persuasive
1.	
evidence that he was unfairly or incorrectly discharged. We therefore agree with the recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered either an error or an injustice. Therefore, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

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 that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of a material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that 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 Docket Number BC- 2008-02598 on 13 November 2008 under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Panel Chairman 
Member
Member
The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number BC-2008-02598 was considered:

Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 27 Jun 08, w/atchs.
Exhibit B.	Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSOS, dated 3 Sep 08, w/atchs. Exhibit C.	Letter, SAF/MRBR dated 19 Sep 08.