RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01484 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, Block 26, Separation Code, “JHF” and Block 28, Narrative Reason for Separation, “Failure to Complete a Course of Instruction” be corrected to accurately reflect his characterization of service. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His DD Form 214 lists a separation code of “JHF” and corresponding Narrative Reason for Separation as “Failure to Complete a Course of Instruction”. He does not believe this separation code, or its corresponding narrative summary, accurately reflects the character and nature of his service or circumstances surrounding his involuntary separation. The applicant believes that from the onset of his Air Force career, he excelled individually and was a well-liked, valued team member. He was competitively selected as an “Exceptional Performer” of the top flight of the school in his first active duty professional military education course (Air and Space Basic Course). After completing that training, he reported to his first duty station to attend both Space and Missile training. He attended and graduated Undergraduate Space Training with an overall academic average of 94 percent. He then attended the ICBM REACT-A Course, completing all graded measurements with an average of 97.3 percent and receiving the highest rating achievable (Highly Qualified) on his practical evaluation in both weapon system and emergency war order procedures. It was while attending this course of training that a series of events led to his separation. He received two speeding tickets and informed his leadership immediately upon receipt, admitted his mistakes, took full responsibility for his actions and accepted the consequences without question or equivocation. Approximately two weeks after receiving the second speeding ticket, he was summoned to meet with his commander. Prior to this meeting, he had completed the last and one of the hardest academic tests in the course, achieving a perfect score and also the highest rating possible (Highly Qualified) on his final practical evaluation. Only after he completed these final evaluations and only seven days from graduating the course, his commander made the decision to permanently decertify him under the Personnel Reliability Program (PRP), due to a stated loss of confidence in his ability to perform 100% of the nuclear mission. Since the commander did not remove his PRP certification upon receipt of the second ticket, he was quite surprised with the abrupt permanent decertification after completing all graded training measurement with high marks and being so close to graduation. The fact that being certified under PRP is a mandatory requirement to perform ICBM duty, he was made ineligible for the job. While it is true he technically did not graduate from the ICBM REACT-A course, the questionable timing of the decision to PRP decertify him resulted in him being prevented from graduating. With the exception of the two speeding tickets, his performance and conduct both on and off duty was above reproach and he excelled in all aspects of military training. The effects of his early separation, the “JHF” separation code and corresponding narrative reason for separation have resulted in his inability to join the Guard, Reserve or another branch of service. Additionally, his Department of Veterans Affairs benefits have been negatively impacted. In support of his request, the applicant provided over 193 pages of documentation to highlight his outstanding performance. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 23 Mar 09. On 14 Jun 10, the applicant’s commander permanently decertified him from PRP based on a personal interview, as he had lost confidence that the applicant could perform 100% of the nuclear mission. On 15 Jun 10, the applicant acknowledged his PRP status and chose not to submit any additional information for consideration. On the same date, the reviewing official concurred with the permanent decertification. On 30 Nov 10, the applicant was furnished an Honorable discharge, and was credited with 1 year, 8 months, and 8 days of active service. The applicant’s DD Form 214 reflects he was separated with a Separation Code of “JHF” and a Narrative Reason for Separation of “Failure to Complete a Course of Instruction”. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibits C and D. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. A review of the documentation shows that the applicant was considered for and not selected for retention or reclassification. As a result, in accordance with AFI 36-3207, Separating Commissioned Officers, Chapter 3, paragraph 3.13, the applicant must be separated. Therefore, the applicant’s discharge was correct and in accordance with DoD and Air Force instructions. The applicant’s service characterization, narrative reason for separation and SPD code are correct as reflected on his DD Form 214. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/JA recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. The applicant alleges that the reason for his disqualification from PRP and resulting elimination from training was his having committed two minor on base speeding violations, which he argues do not constitute the type of serious offense that would support PRP decertification according to governing DoD regulations, DoD 5210.42-R. In fact, the basis for his permanent disqualification from PRP was a loss of confidence by the commander that the applicant could perform 100% of the nuclear mission based on her personal interview. This is a perfectly valid reason for permanent disqualification, in accordance with paragraph C5.1.9 of DoD 5210.42-R. While the traffic violation may have had some impact on the commander’s decision, they were clearly not the basis for the disqualification. While not articulated as such, the applicant also argues that his disqualification from PRP and elimination from missile officer training was essentially an injustice, given his otherwise stellar performance in the academic and other portions of the training course. The courts have for years now held that an “injustice” within the meaning of 10 USC 1552 means more than an action that seems unfair to the applicant, or that might cause collateral consequences. It has been defined as an action(s) or treatment by military authorities that “shock the conscience or sense of justice.” Sawyer v United States, 18 C1. Ct 860(1989). The narrative reason and code designator for applicant’s separation from the Air Force, as written on this DD Form 214, were accurate and properly reflected the reason for his discharge. That discharge was based on completely legal and appropriate discretionary decisions made by the responsible Air Force authorities, from the training commander, to the IST Board to the ultimate discharge authority. The applicant’s elimination from initial skills training, and his failure to be reclassified based on his skill set and the needs of the Air Force, fully complied with all governing directives, and the result was the same as experienced by many other officers similarly situated in this force drawdown era. A complete copy of the AFPC/JA evaluation is at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 3 Oct 14 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E). 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 injustice. The applicant is requesting his separation code and corresponding narrative reason be changed to accurately reflect his service and to provide him an opportunity to join the Guard, Reserve or another branch of service. In this regard, the applicant states the timing of the decision to PRP decertify him is questionable and was done so after completing all graded training measurement with high marks and days from graduating the course. The decision to abruptly decertify him after a couple of weeks from his second speeding ticket prevented him from graduating from the course. After carefully reviewing the evidence of record, and taking into consideration the comments of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility, we believe the commander’s abrupt permanent decertification after the applicant had completed all academic requirements with high marks and being so close to graduation, we find the commander’s action rose to the level of an injustice which shocks the conscience. Although no error occurred in the applicant’s discharge as it was done in accordance with established Air Force policy and procedures, we believe that based on the totality of the evidence presented the applicant has suffered an injustice. Our favorable consideration of this request does not condone the applicant’s traffic violations, however, for the reasons described above, we believe that it would be an injustice for the applicant to continue to suffer the adverse effects of his narrative reason and corresponding SPD code and therefore recommend his records be corrected as indicated below. THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to the APPLICANT be corrected to show that his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty issued on 30 November 2010, be corrected to reflect a separation code of “JFF” and a narrative reason for separation as “Secretarial Authority”. The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-01484 in Executive Session on 10 Mar 2015 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member All members voted to correct the records as recommended. The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-01484 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 4 Apr 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 17 Apr 14. Exhibit D. Memorandum, AFPC/JA, dated 28 May 14. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Oct 14.