RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-00304 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His narrative reason for separation (Failure to complete a course 
of instruction) and corresponding separation code (JHF) be 
changed to reflect “reduction in strength.” 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

The narrative reason for separation listed on his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, fails to 
take into account the extenuating circumstances for his honorable 
discharge, i.e., the ongoing reduction in strength, the timing of 
the reclassification board, the Air Force’s refusal of appeals, 
and the nature of the screening program from which he was 
eliminated. 

 

The Air Force misplaced his reclassification paperwork and he had 
to resubmit it numerous times. Ultimately, he ended up meeting a 
late board for the fiscal year which resulted in a high 
percentage of non-reclassified officers. These numbers were not 
based upon merit, but rather a downsizing in numbers to meet 
force strength requirements. 

 

He was not allowed to appeal due to the Air Force’s blanket and 
rigid refusal of any appeals of these board’s decisions. 

 

Although reclassification was initiated due to the results of the 
Initial Flight Screening Program, he was separated from the 
service due to the reduction in strength. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal 
statement, and a copy of AF Form 77, Letter of Evaluation. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

On 31 Mar 10, the applicant entered active duty in the grade of 
second lieutenant, as a pilot trainee. 

 


On 12 Jul 10, the applicant’s military training officer 
recommended he be eliminated from training for failure to meet 
proficiency standards, specifically for flying deficiencies. 

 

His commander recommended elimination from the program, and 
stated although he was unable to complete the program, he felt 
the applicant would be a strong asset to the United States Air 
Force. 

 

On 27 Dec 10, the applicant was honorably discharged from the Air 
Force for “Failure to complete a course of instruction.” 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSIP makes no recommendation. DPSIP states the applicant 
was eliminated from Initial Flight Screening for flying 
deficiency on 3 Aug 10. On 22 Sep 10, an Initial Skills Training 
(IST) elimination package was presented to the reclassification 
panel, and the applicant was not selected for reclassification 
and was subsequently discharged. 

 

The complete DPSIP evaluation is at Exhibit B. 

 

AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial. DPSOS states the applicant’s 
separation code and narrative reason for separation were properly 
established based upon his elimination from training. DPSOS 
found no evidence of an error or injustice in the establishment 
of his narrative reason for separation and separation code. 

 

The applicant was discharged in accordance with AFI 36-3207, Separating Commissioned Officers, Air Force Guidance Memorandum, 
1.1; it authorizes the Air Force to discharge probationary 
officers when they do not complete initial skills training and 
there is no requirement for the officer’s continued service. The 
applicant was eliminated from Initial Flight Screening for flying 
deficiency on 3 Aug 10. He was subsequently recommended for 
discharge by the IST panel which convened on 22 Sep 10. 

 

The complete DPSOS evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

On 9 Sep 11, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded 
to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. To date, 
a response has not been received (Exhibit D). 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

 

 

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 error or injustice. We took notice 
of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of 
the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation 
of the Air Force office of primary responsibility (DPSIP) and 
adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the 
applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. 
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no 
basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this 
application. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 

 

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of 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-2011-00304 in Executive Session on 13 Oct 11, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 14 Jan 10(sic), w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSIP, dated 1 Jan 11(sic). 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 22 Aug 11, w/atch. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Sep 11. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair