RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-03215 

   						COUNSEL:  

HEARING DESIRED:  YES

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  The results of the 15-02 Officer Initial Skills Training (IST) Reclassification Panel discharging him from the Air Force be nullified.  

2.  His records should meet a new IST Panel after amending the Training Eliminee Reclassification memorandum submitted for the     15-02 Officer IST Panel to remove any negative recommendation indicating he should not be reclassified based on his decision to pursue Combat Rescue Officer (CRO) training. 

3.  In an alternative to (1) and (2) above, the decision to recoup his education expenses be voided. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS:

Through counsel that: 

1.  He should not be discharged from the Air Force because he was accepted into the Combat Rescue Officer (CRO) program.

2.  The recommendations by the 479 FTG/CC and 12 FTW/CC contain inaccurate information and should not be used to deny his reclassification.  

a.  His squadron commander initially strongly supported his retention and training, however, after his group and wing commanders recommended against retention, the squadron commander changed his opinion.  While technically not unlawful command influence, it smacks of the same qualities and should not be allowed.  

b.  Almost 90 percent of the officers who met the IST panel were retained and reclassified.  The applicant had the same potential for success as the 35 officers retained.  

c.  The IST Reclassification Board Recorder failed to list AFSC 13D (CRO) as one of the eligible career fields into which he qualified to reclassify.  The Recorder was aware he was being considered by the CRO career field. 

d.  There currently is not a process for member to review their IST panel packages.  The IST process should provide protections to the member similar to those provided in the Retention Recommendation Form (RRF), where if negative information is added, the member is given an opportunity to write to the Board.  

3.  The decision to recoup his education expenses was not within the authority of the IST Panel for the AFPC Commander because he graduated from the US Merchant Marine Academy, which is not part of the Department of Defense.  

4.  To say an officer who graduated less than two years ago, has not committed any offense, has not received any counseling or reprimands, and has shown above average performance during training is not qualified for any position in the Air Force in ludicrous.  

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 17 Aug 13, after graduating from the US Merchant Marine Academy.

On 19 Sep 14, the applicant self-eliminated (i.e., Drop on Request or DOR) from the Combat Systems Officer (CSO) undergraduate course at NAS Pensacola.  The applicant’s Wing Commander, Group Commander, and ultimately, his Squadron Commander all recommended the applicant not be reclassified or retained in the Air Force. 

On 8 Feb 15, the applicant was furnished an honorable discharge, with a narrative reason for separation of “failure to complete a course of instruction,” and was credited with 1 year, 5 months, and 22 days of active 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:

The AFPC/DP2LT recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice.  On 19 Sep 14, due to his self-initiated request to drop from the training, the applicant was eliminated from the CSO undergraduate course.  He was never officially accepted into the CRO career field and was properly counseled on the ramifications of his decision to self-eliminate.  On 11 Dec 14, his IST reclassification package was reviewed by the AFPC IST Reclassification Panel, which recommended the applicant be discharged and the cost of his education be recouped.  On 19 Dec 14, the AFPC commander approved the discharge and ordered recoupment in conjunction with the discharge.

Four days after the IST Classification Panel met, AFPC/DP2LT received a letter from ACC/A3J indicating the applicant had been invited to attend CRO Phase II Assessment for possible entry into the CRO career filed; however, officers who are meeting an IST Reclassification panel are not authorized to apply for specialty career fields until approved for retraining by the IST Panel.  ACC/A3J subsequently clarified they definitely did not want to circumvent the established AFPC reclassification process, and the letter was sent for information only in case the member was at a point in the reclassification process where reassignment was still feasible. 

Officer accessions receives an “Expense Summary” for each eliminee meeting the IST Reclassification Panel.  The cost of his Merchant Marine Academy education is not under the purview of the Air Force, and the applicant’s Expense Summary did not reflect the cost of his Merchant Marine Academy education.  The recoupment ordered was to cover any possible education costs prior to the applicant’s discharge.  

Recommend denial of request.  The applicant was properly considered by the IST Reclassification Panel and discharged with recoupment of the cost of his education by the approval authority, the AFPC commander.  

A complete copy of the AFPC/DP2LT evaluation is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 6 Mar 17 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D).  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 injustice concerning the applicant’s request to nullify the results of the 15-02 Officer (IST) Reclassification Panel; amend his Training Eliminee Reclassification Memorandum from the 15-02 IST Reclassification Panel; or, void the Air Force’s decision on recoupment.  We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendation of AFPC/DP2LT and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion.  While the Board notes the comments from the applicant indicating his squadron commander initially supported his request to retrain, the Board acknowledges the authority of serving Air Force commander’s to make recommendations and decisions, and we will not simply substitute our judgment for the judgment of three commanders and the AFPC Commander, who were in a position to best assess the applicant and to understand the circumstances, without clear evidence of an error which was the cause of his non selection for retention.  The Board believes the applicant’s contention he was unjustly treated because the IST Panel Recorder did not list CRO as one of the eligible career fields into which the applicant was qualified to retrain is a moot point.  In addition, even if his contention is correct, we are convinced it would not have altered the final Board outcome because we believe the applicant was denied retention based upon the force of the recommendations of all of his commanders, not a minor procedural error.  With regard to the education cost recoupment, the Board notes his Merchant Marine Academy education is not under the purview of the Air Force and his expense summary did not reflect this cost.  Finally, the applicant cites a prior Board decision in AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-05744 as precedence for granting this case; however, we do not believe BC-2013-05744 sets precedence here.  In AFBCMR Docket Number        BC-2013-05744, an error made by the Air Force in presenting information to the IST Panel was clearly the reason the member was not selected for retention, thus full relief required removal of the incorrect information and allowing the member to meet another IST Panel.  In the current case, as stated, the applicant’s non-selection for retention was not the result of an Air Force error.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the applicant’s requested relief.

4.  Notwithstanding the above, the Board finds sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate an injustice would exist by further barring the applicant from future service.  After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s complete submission, we believe the applicant’s DD Form 214 should be changed in order to provide him the opportunity to reapply to the Air Force to any career field should the Air Force open programs to access former officers.  Therefore, we recommend the applicant’s records be corrected as indicated below.  

5.  The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has not been shown 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 RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to the APPLICANT be corrected to update his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, to reflect a narrative reason for separation of “Secretarial Authority” and a separation program designator code of “JFF.”

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-03215 in Executive Session on 30 Nov 17 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

All members voted to correct the records as recommended.  The following documentary was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 23 Jul 17, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Excerpt from Personnel Records, not MPR.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DP2LT, dated 17 Oct 16, w/atchs.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Mar 17.
	Exhibit E.  AFBCMR, Docket Number BC-2013-05744.

Pursuant to paragraph 1 of AFI 36-2603 (Title 32 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 865.1), it is certified a quorum was present at the Board's review and deliberations, and the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board's proceedings in the above entitled matter.