RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00142 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her separation code be changed to Secretarial Authority, to allow her to reenter the service as a commissioned officer. She be allowed entry into the Air Force as an active duty, reserve or Air National Guard officer. Her debt be terminated. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She was removed from the Air Force after failing the Security Forces Basic Officers Course. She is now in debt to the government because she received ROTC educational benefits. She graduated from college with honors; specifically, she was the sole Valedictorian of her class. She was also a member of several local and national organizations. She worked while in college and succeeded in ROTC. While in the Security Forces Basic Officers Course, she exemplified core values. After her discharge she continued to move forward despite the setbacks and she continued to meet her financial obligations. With all due respect, she believes her commander and others misjudged her. She was told at the end of the course that she was destined to work at McDonalds. She believes she was not properly groomed for success; yet, she takes responsibility for her actions throughout her short eight month career. She was never allowed the opportunity to speak with the commanders that recommended her release. She was also not offered reclassification although the regulations state she should have had that opportunity as her release was not due to misconduct. She believes regulations were not followed and only asks for the opportunity to serve in a different career field. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is a former member of the Air Force who served from 30 September 2012 through 5 June 2013. In March, the applicant filed a complaint with the Inspector General. That complaint was transferred to the commander for disposition. The commander initiated a Commander Directed Investigation (CDI) after allegations of cruelty, oppression, maltreatment and dereliction of duty against the training cadre and the commander. Those allegations were unsubstantiated. The CDI did state, however, the commander failed to ensure compliance with all applicable requirements as outlined in AETC 36-2215, Technical and Basic Military Training Administration, before signing and approving the 125A, Record of Administrative Training Action by making a discharge recommendation that was not within the purview of the training squadron. Accordingly, the applicant was issued a corrected AETC Form 125A. This error was found to be an administrative oversight and lack of familiarity with procedures rather than dereliction of duty. According to AFPC/DPSOR, the applicant was notified by her commander that she was being removed from the Security Forces Basic Officer Course for various performance deficiencies. She acknowledged receipt of the notification of removal and possible discharge. On 11 April 2013, the applicant's record was considered, but not selected for reclassification. On 5 June 13, the applicant was separated from the Air Force under the provisions of AFI 36-3207, Separating Commissioned Officers, para 3.13 (Officers who Don't Complete Initial Training, Formal Upgrade, or Certification Training). Her narrative reason for separation was listed as failure to complete a course of instruction and her SPD cod was listed as “JHF.” Her service was characterized as honorable. She was credited with 8 months and 6 days of active duty 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: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial. The applicant's commander completed AETC Form 125A to notify the applicant that she was being removed from the Security Forces Basic Officer Course for various performance deficiencies. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of removal and possible discharge. The applicant's record was considered, but not selected for reclassification on 11 April 2013. A review of the documentation shows the applicant was counseled on her responsibilities as class leader but failed to ensure her team was prepared and constantly failed to lead the team, allowing a squad leader to take the lead in her place. These deficiencies led to her removal from responsibilities as class leader. The chief of the basic officer course indicated that the applicant demonstrated several deficiencies with regard to leadership, command/control and decision-making. As a result, the applicant was considered but not selected for retention and reclassification and was subsequently discharged. The applicant's service characterization, narrative reason for separation, and SPD code are correct as reflected on her DD Form 214. Therefore, the applicant's discharge is correct and in accordance with DoD and Air Force instructions. Based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge to include the SPD code, narrative reason for separation and character of service was appropriately administered and within the discretion of the discharge authority. The applicant did not provide any evidence that an error or injustice occurred in the processing of her discharge. The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C. DFAS does not make a recommendation. DFAS submitted a summary of the applicant’s debt which shows she owes an additional $5,737.75. The complete DFAS evaluation is at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reiterates that she would like to be reinstated as an Air Force officer. She also states she received the DFAS advisory 13 months after her original submission and requests the Board takes this into consideration. The advisory speaks to her involuntary discharge, but fails to address the facts surrounding her discharge. These facts show she was wrongfully removed from the course. For instance, she was not given the opportunity to speak with the training commander that recommended her removal from the course. The officers that completed the paperwork did not adequately interpret or use the forms. By the commanders own admission, they were either inadequately trained or did not know how to complete the forms. She complained to the Inspector General about her treatment during the course. She also has medical documentation showing she did not feel well between the 26th and the 28th of February. However, she was told she was faking, when in fact; she was dehydrated and was stage one hypertensive. She is an over-achiever and not a poor performer. She was never deficient in her performance. She was later offered encouraging words and she holds onto those words as motivation. She hopes the Board assists her by reinstating her into the Air Force. The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit F. 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, to include her rebuttal comments, in judging the merits of the case and find no evidence of an error or injustice which warrants corrective action in this case. The applicant contends that she was never allowed the opportunity to speak with the commanders that recommended her release, she was not offered reclassification and she believes regulations were not followed. Notwithstanding the applicant’s view, we find the applicant has not submitted documentation to override the rationale provided by the Air Force office of primary responsibility. With regard to the applicant’s contention that she was not allowed to speak with the commanders that recommended her release, there was no evidence provided to substantiate this claim. While the record is silent on this issue, based on the presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs and without evidence to the contrary, we must assume the applicant’s discharge was proper and in compliance with appropriate regulation and that she was afforded all rights to which she was entitled. With regard to the applicant’s contention that she was not offered reclassification, records reflect her record was reviewed by a reclassification board and she was not selected for reclassification on 11 April 2013. While we note the CDI did find some discrepancies with the completion of AETC Form 125A by the training squadron by making a recommendation that was not within its purview, we note this was found to be an administrative oversight and lack of familiarity with procedures rather than dereliction of duty. This discrepancy, however, was corrected by issuing the applicant a corrected AETC Form 125A. Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief. 4. 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-2014-00142 in Executive Session on 24 June 2015 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-00142 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 20 Nov 13, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 2 Apr 14. Exhibit D. DFAS Summary, undated. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 May 15. Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant’s Response, dated 15 May 15, w/atchs.