RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 				DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-03790

							COUNSEL:  NONE

							HEARING DESIRED:  YES 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The debt for repayment of his United States Air Force Academy (USAFA) scholarship in the amount of $124,252.49 be remitted.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

On 22 December 2013, he was involuntarily discharged from the Air Force and required to repay a pro-rata share of his USAFA scholarship, calculated to be $124,252.49.

An Air Education Training Command (AETC) Report of Investigation dated 17 March 2014, may shed light on the hazing and maltreatment he and other airmen received at the hands of Combat Control Technician (CCT) training instructors.  He was not aware of this investigation until after his discharge from the Air Force.  Had the Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC) Initial Skills Training (IST) Reclassification panel been aware, they may have made a different choice and retained him in the Air Force.

He was considered and denied for retention by the AFPC IST Reclassification panel.  However, they did not explain why he was not selected for two Air Force Specialty Codes (AFSC) he was not only well qualified for, but were available based on the needs of the Air Force.  Specifically, he was qualified to serve in the 13M [Air Field Operations] AFSC.  He met the initial qualifications for 13M after passing all the initial academic and practical training.  All applicable certificates are included in his submission.  Furthermore, as a 2nd Class Cadet at the USAFA, he was originally awarded the 14N [Intelligence] AFSC, but opted out due to his selection into the 13C [Special Tactics] AFSC.  He was qualified for two different AFSCs [13M and 14N] the Air Force needed.  Therefore, he should have been retained or if involuntarily separated, should not have been obligated to repay the USAFA scholarship.

The AFPC IST Reclassification panel and the Secretary of the Air Force Board of Remissions based their decisions on multiple falsified documents submitted by CCT training instructors during and after his attendance at Combat Control School.  The Secretary of the Air Force Board for Remissions decision memorandum cites eight counseling statements and a major security violation listed on Air Force Form 125A, Record of Administrative Training Action.  There are only seven counseling statements.  This decision was based on false information.  The commandant facilitated the targeted hazing and maltreatment of any airman he deemed unworthy of progressing through the Combat Control training.  This treatment was outside of the established regulations and because he chose to make a verbal complaint to the commandant about his actions, he was continuously subjected to maltreatment.  He received counselings in an effort to discredit him as a trainee and an Air Force officer.  The CCT instructors’ coordinated efforts to have him removed from the Special Tactics Officer AFSC was successful.  His elimination was out of his control, not only because he was involuntarily removed due to these false statements, but because of the extensive maltreatment and hazing he and other airmen were subjected to was not handled by the Special Tactics leadership when he reported it to them.

Had the IST Reclassification panel and the Remissions board been aware of the AETC Report of Investigation which detailed the hazing and maltreatment perpetrated by the CCT training instructors during his training course, they may have made a different choice.  Based on the evidence he has submitted, he asks the Board to correct his records to show that the circumstances that led to his discharge from the Air Force were deliberately falsified and outside of his control, and that this finding should negate his obligation to repay his USAFA scholarship.  He has demonstrated through this application that he was qualified to serve in multiple other AFSCs based on Air Force needs.  Additionally, he has provided substantial evidence demonstrating persistent hazing, maltreatment, and cruelty he and his fellow airmen endured.  These examples of unprofessional behavior were deliberately executed in order to create an unfair training environment for him as he progressed through the Special Tactics Officer pipeline.  He implores the Board to consider the relevant documentation which illustrates the injustice that resulted in his involuntary discharge and subsequent requirement to repay the United States government for his education.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered the Regular Air Force on 23 May 2012.

AETC Forms 173, Student Record of Academic/Nonacademic Counseling and Comments, were issued to the applicant on the following dates:

Date	Reason for Counseling

28 June 2013	Failure to “top off” canteens
28 June 2013	Failure to wear reflective arm band
10 July 2013	Failure to pack Gatorade
10 July 2013	Failure to provide required weight for ruck sack
10 July 2013	Failure to achieve passing score
17 July 2013	Lost Gerber multi tool
24 July 2013	Prohibited use of Global Positioning System (GPS)

On 19 July 2013, the applicant received a Letter of Counseling for leaving his dormitory room unlocked.

According to AETC Form 125A, Record of Administrative Training Action, dated 9 August 2013, the recommendation to disenroll the applicant from Combat Control School was approved.  Retention was recommended.

In a letter to AFPC/DPSIP, dated 17 September 2013, the applicant indicated that he would like to be reclassified into an AFSC based on Air Force needs.

In a letter digitally signed on 31 October 2013, AFPC/DPSIP informed the applicant he was not selected for reclassification and would be discharged from active duty with an honorable characterization.  He was also advised that he must reimburse the United States government for the unserved portion (pro-rata share) of the amount expended on educational assistance.

On 22 December 2013, the applicant, a second lieutenant (O-1) was furnished an honorable discharge and was credited with one year and seven months of active service.  His narrative reason for separation is “Failure to complete a course of instruction.”

In a memorandum dated 13 January 2014, regarding the applicant’s allegations of reprisal by members of his training squadron, the, the AETC Inspector General (IG) determined that absent a protected communication, the circumstances regarding the administrative actions taken during the applicant’s training did not constitute reprisal. Therefore, in accordance with AFI 90-301, the AETC IG indicated they were unable to pursue the matter further and considered the applicant’s case closed.

In a memorandum dated 14 January 2014, the AETC/IG advised the applicant his complaint pertaining to instructor conduct dated 18 December 2013, was transferred to AETC/IGQ for a complete analysis.

In a memorandum dated 14 February 2014, AETC/IGQ reviewed the applicant’s allegation that because he attempted to address what he considered inappropriate comments made by CCT senior training instructor and his staff, the senior training instructor threatened to call ahead to every course left in his pipeline to warn them about the applicant.  However, the AETC/IGQ complaint analysis revealed that the applicant had not brought forth credible evidence of a violation of law, instruction, regulation, or policy; as such, AETC/IGQ dismissed the applicant’s complaint in accordance with AFI 90-301.  Therefore, they were unable to further pursue the matter and considered his case closed.

An AETC Report of Investigation dated 17 March 2014, provided by the applicant detailed potential hazing and maltreatment by CCT training instructors that occurred during the period the applicant attended the Combat Control training course.

On 11 April 2014, the applicant submitted a DD Form 2789, Waiver of Indebtedness Application, to remit USAFA education costs.

In a letter dated 13 February 2015, the Air Force Review Boards Agency, on behalf of the Secretary of the Air Force, determined the applicant’s request for remission was disapproved.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memoranda prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibits C and D and G.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DP2LT recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice.  The IST Reclassification panel considered the applicant’s retention in the Air Force and recommended discharge.  The discharge authority approved the panel’s recommendation for discharge and ordered recoupment of his debt to the Air Force.  The IST Reclassification package submitted by the applicant contained seven AF Forms 173 and one Letter of Counseling for a total of eight counseling statements.  These documents are considered valid since the applicant signed them.

The authority to discharge officers is found in Title 10, United States Code, Section 630, Discharge of commissioned officers with less than six years of active commissioned service or found not qualified for promotion for first lieutenant or lieutenant (junior grade).  The applicant had less than six years of active service when his IST Reclassification package met the IST panel on 17 October 2013.  In accordance with AFPCI 36-112, Line Officer Initial Skill Training Reclassification Procedures, the Director, Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council has delegated the authority to discharge officers who fail to complete their IST to the AFPC Commander.

Line of the Air Force officers who are eliminated from their IST, whether elimination was self-initiated or not, and whether before or after training commences (to include initial training declination), will be considered for reclassification contingent on current Air Force requirements.  A panel will convene as required to board all eliminee packages.  The applicant’s IST package contained the following AFSCs, in order of the applicant’s preferences, (1) 14N [Intelligence], (2) 71S [Special Investigations], (3) 17D [Cyber Operations], (4) 13S [Space Operations], and (5) 13N [Nuclear and Missile Operations] for consideration by the panel members.  The following AFSCs were listed on the IST package coversheet produced for the IST Panel members review: 13M [Airfield Operations], 13S [Space Operations], 14N [Intelligence], 17D [Cyber Operations], 21A [Aircraft Maintenance], 21R [Logistics Readiness], 35P [Public Affairs], 38P [Personnel], 63A [Acquisition Manager], and 64P [Contracting] based on the applicant’s academic requirements and available quotas for the IST Reclassification Panel.  Although the applicant did not volunteer for the 13M career field, the panel members considered the applicant’s record for reclassification into any AFSC he was academically qualified to fill.  On 17 October 2013, the IST panel considered the applicant’s desires and capabilities, commander recommendations, and ultimately recommended he be discharged.  The discharge authority approved the panel’s recommendation, directing the applicant’s discharge and declined to request a Secretary of the Air Force waiver and ordered recoupment be sought in conjunction with the discharge.

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

SAF/MRBB recommends denial.  Prior to applying to the Board, the applicant submitted a request for remission of the debt with the Secretary of the Air Force Remissions Board on 13 February 2015.  The Director of the Air Force Review Boards Agency issued a decision denying the applicant's request for remission of his $124,252.49 debt which resulted from recoupment of a pro-rata share of a USAFA scholarship, as a result of involuntary separation from the United States Air Force on 22 December 2013, before his commitment was complete.  The applicant failed to meet performance standards during his course of training to become a Special Tactics Officer.  More specifically, the applicant was cited with multiple infractions throughout his training which ultimately culminated in his being removed from training for this AFSC.  Additionally, the applicant was well aware of the service commitment required when he accepted the USAFA scholarship which was used to pay the applicant’s educational expenses.  Because the applicant understood this contractual commitment, he applied for reclassification of his AFSC.  This request was denied because he failed to meet performance standards commensurate with his grade and had an integrity violation.  Specifically, the AETC Form 125A stated he had eight [sic] counseling statements and a Letter of Counseling for a major security violation.  Additionally, he used a GPS during a land navigation evaluation in violation of the instructions.  The applicant lied when he was confronted with the unauthorized GPS use.  For these reasons he was not retained in the Air Force.

A complete copy of the SAF/MRBB evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

This is an extremely personal process for his family, not only because of the financial liability, but also because he was removed from service to our nation.  Serving our nation has been his ambition since he was 17 years old when he witnessed the tragedy of 9/11.  No matter what happens, he will be forever thankful for the experiences and opportunity to serve in the military.

He would like to provide insight into the Air Force Special Tactics culture, as this is critical to understanding much of his story.  The “informal” rules and culture of this community are extremely insular and exclusive.  If one alienates oneself in this community, it is nearly impossible to recover - no matter what the reason may be because the members of these communities have constantly been preparing for high risk deployments, executing those deployments, and then experiencing short decompression periods before once again training to deploy.  Therefore, they are quick to label something out-of-line with their culture; as a threat to their community.  When he, as a young officer attempted to address what he saw as multiple instances of policy violations, he experienced aggressive and consistent retaliation from junior and senior non-commissioned officers.

The OPR advisory relied solely on counseling statements produced by the Combat Control School.  This is about much more than the counseling statements.  The IST Reclassification panel and the Remissions board considered these counseling statements, but they did not consider the AETC Report of Investigation into the hazing and maltreatment of students because they were unavailable until after both of these boards convened.  In fact, the investigation was not finalized until 14 March 2014, after he was discharged from the Air Force in December 2013.  It is the overall course of events these boards did not consider that are important in carrying out a fair analysis.  His false statement was not an isolated incident.  It is a culminating action that he took in response to continued harassment and retaliation - because he “blew the whistle” on instructor actions that were and still are corrosive to the Air Force's mission and values.

While it is a technical error, SAF/MRBB states that he had eight separate counseling statements with an additional Letter of Counseling.  However, there are only seven total documents, six AF Forms 173 and one Letter of Counseling.  While this is a small error, it is indicative of the lack of detail and the haste with which the Special Tactics career field sought to build a case against him.  To his knowledge, the IST Reclassification panel and the Remission board made their determinations based on eight documents instead of seven.

The OPR suggests that his signature on the counseling statements indicate an admission of guilt and that the actions described in the documents are factual.  The AF Form 173 states that all students must acknowledge derogatory comments.  Furthermore, the Letter of Counseling he received specifically states “Your signature does not signify an admission of guilt.”  He was never given time to deliberate or compose any formal response, which would be pertinent to ensuring due process.  He has included explanations in his initial submission to the Board.

The evidence demonstrates that a pattern of behavior began after he suggested that the commandant and other CCT training instructors were abusing their positions and retaliating against any student who questioned their actions.  It then explains how this retaliation carried on to Combat Control School where he eventually had an out-of-character reaction in response to the “special” treatment he continued to receive.  The Special Tactics training pipeline and leadership then retaliated against him by constructing an elimination package laden with unsubstantiated claims by instructors, some of which, operated outside of their authority.  This closed system was lacking in accountability and allowed subjective retaliation by instructors at training schools to go unchecked.

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

SAF/MRBB recommends denial.  The applicant claims his training records were deliberately falsified in retaliation for his complaint about hazing, maltreatment and violations by the training staff.  He further claims his falsified training records were relied upon by the Reclassifications board to deny his request which led to his discharge from the Air Force and this retaliation should negate his obligation to repay his debt.  In his application to the Board, the applicant admitted his training records included seven counseling statements and that he lied when confronted with his unauthorized use of a Global Positioning System during a land navigation evaluation in violation of instructions.  The applicant further states that he was qualified to serve in multiple AFSCs within the Air Force.  However, he has failed to demonstrate his nonselection by the Reclassification board was the result of falsified information created in retaliation for reporting hazing and maltreatment in training.  In an advisory capacity, on 28 October 2016, seven members of the Remissions board considered this application and unanimously agreed that collection of the debt will not result in an injustice, inequitable situation or hardship.

A complete copy of the SAF/MRBB evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit G.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

He has no further evidence to submit to the Board before a decision is made in his case.  However, he asks the board consider alternatives to full remission that make this situation just. Whether this be a partial remission or remission in exchange for his service in the Air Force as a Reserve member.

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.  We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission, including his responses to the Air Force evaluations, in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force OPRs and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief.

4.  The applicant alleges he has been the victim of reprisal and has not been afforded full protection under Title 10, United States Code, Section 1034 (10 U.S.C. §1034), Protected Communications; Prohibition of Retaliatory Personnel Actions.  We note, the applicant filed an IG complaint however, AETC/IGQ, reviewed the allegations and determined that the applicant had not brought forth credible evidence of a violation of law, instruction, regulation, or policy; as such, AETC/IGQ dismissed the applicant’s complaint in accordance with AFI 90-301.  In addition, AETC/IG concluded that absent a protected communication, the circumstances regarding the administrative actions taken during the applicant’s training did not constitute reprisal.  Nevertheless, in accordance with 10 USC § 1034, we reviewed the evidence of record to reach our own independent determination of whether reprisal occurred. The applicant asserts that the circumstances that led to his discharge from the Air Force were deliberately falsified and outside of his control, and that this finding should negate his obligation to repay his USAFA scholarship.  However, based on the available evidence of record, it appears the discharge was consistent with the substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and within the commander's discretionary authority.  Other than his own assertions, the applicant has not provided substantial evidence that would convince us the discharge was contrary to the provisions of the governing regulation.  Based on the evidence before us, we conclude the applicant has not established that any of the actions he alleges were in retaliation to making a protected communication.  As such, it is our opinion the applicant has not been the victim of reprisal.  In view of the above and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 

5.  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 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-2015-03790 in Executive Session on 11 October 2016, and 15 December 2016, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-03790 was considered:

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 31 August 2015, w/atchs.
Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DP2LT, dated 1 April 2016, 
  w/atchs.
Exhibit D.  Memorandum, SAF/MRBB, dated12 August 2016, 
  w/atchs.
Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 24 August 2016.
Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 12 September 2016.
Exhibit G.  Memorandum, SAF/MRBB, dated 31 October 2016.
Exhibit H.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 14 November 2016.
Exhibit I.  Letter, Applicant, undated.

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