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.