RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-01469

XXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL: XXXXXXXXXXXXX

	HEARING: YES 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  The findings and results of his Initial Skills Training (IST) Reclassification Panel conducted in January and February 2012, be changed.  Alternatively, he be reassigned into any Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) for which he qualifies consistent with his permanent decertification from the Air Force Personnel Reliability Program (PRP).

2.  The debt for his education at the United States Air Force Academy be remitted and all payments made against the debt be refunded. 

3.  His separation code and narrative reason for separation be changed to Secretarial Authority or one that would permit his immediate eligibility for active duty service.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Through counsel, the applicant makes the following major contentions:

a.  The IST panel’s decision to discharge the applicant from the Air Force and not allow his reclassification was in violation of published Department of Defense and Air Force policy, and amounted to legal error and injustice. The applicant should have been retained and reclassified into the, Acquisitions career field after he was permanently decertified from PRP.

b.  The applicant was denied equitable treatment and a fair assessment of the “whole person concept” mandated in APFCI 36-112, Line Officer Initial Skill Training Reclassification Procedures, Chapter 2, and was arbitrarily denied reclassification back to the Acquisitions career field for which he was identified for accession upon graduation from the United States Air Force Academy.

c.  The applicant was denied equitable treatment when he was reclassified into another AFSC when other officers who had failed IST training were either not required to go before an IST reclassification panel or were allowed to reclassify due to reasons having nothing to do with moral reservations with direct mission responsibility for the use of nuclear weapons. 

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is a former second lieutenant (O-1) who attended the United States Air Force Academy from 28 June 2007 through 24 May 2011.

On 25 May 2011, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force in the grade of second lieutenant.

According to AF Form 286a, Personnel Reliability Program (PRP) Permanent Disqualification/Decertification Action, dated 17 October 2011, during a personal interview, the applicant indicated that he was unwilling to execute nuclear weapons and was permanently disqualified for PRP duties.

In a letter signed on 30 January 2012, AFPC/DPSIP informed the applicant he was not selected for reclassification and would be discharged from active duty with an honorable service 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 6 May 2012, the applicant was honorably discharged in the grade of second lieutenant and was credited with 11 months and 12 days of active service and 3 years, 10 months and 28 days of inactive service.  His narrative reason for separation is “Failure to complete a course of instruction.”

On 12 May 2016, via counsel, the applicant submitted a remissions request to the Secretary of the Air Force Remissions Board (SAF/MRB), to remit education costs.

In a letter dated 1 December 2016, the Air Force Review Boards Agency, on behalf of the Secretary of the Air Force, disapproved the applicant’s request to remit the debt resulting from the recoupment of the United States Air Force Academy scholarship he received from 25 June 2007 through 6 May 2012. 

On 22 December 2016, the applicant appealed the decision to deny the remission of his indebtedness.

On 28 July 2017, the appeal authority denied the applicant’s request to remit the debt because it was not in the best interest of the Air Force.

For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B and the advisories at Exhibits C-E.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSIP recommends denying the applicant’s request to change the findings of the IST panel.    On 15 February 2012, the Air Force Line Officer Initial Skills Training Reclassification Panel (IST Panel 12-03) considered the applicant’s desires and capabilities, commander recommendations, and ultimately recommended him for discharge.  The discharge authority approved the panel’s recommendation and directed the applicant be discharged.  In addition, the panel considered recoupment of the pro-rata share of the unserved active duty service commitment associated with the applicant’s scholarship.  Per Title 10 United States Code, Section 2005 (Advanced education assistance: active duty agreement; reimbursement requirements) and the associated Department of Defense Financial Management Regulation, recoupment of the pro-rata share of an unserved active duty service commitment may be sought.  Based upon the applicant’s elimination from training, the IST panel and discharge authority determined the applicant was required to repay the government the pro-rata share of the unserved active duty service commitment associated with his United States Air Force Academy scholarship.  The applicant has not exhausted all administrative avenues for relief regarding his indebtedness and should submit a request for remission or cancellation of his debt.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denying the applicant’s request to change his separation code and corresponding narrative reason for discharge.  The applicant was appropriately discharged under the provisions of AFI 36-3207, Separating Commissioned Officers, for failure to complete a course of instruction.  Therefore, the separation authority, separation code and narrative reason for separation are correctly indicated on his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/JA recommends denying the application.  The applicant was decertified under the PRP and removed from missile training and as a result, he was selected for separation by the Line Officer IST Reclassification Board held on 15 February 2012.  As such he was appropriately discharged under the provisions of AFI 36-3207, paragraph 3.13 (Officers Who Don’t Complete Initial Training, Formal Upgrade, or Certification Training).  He was also ordered to pay back the pro-rata share of the unserved active duty service commitment associated with his education at the United States Air Force Academy.  This decision was made after careful evaluation of all the factors in the applicant’s record.  These factors include the considerations listed in AFPCI 36-112, and any other factors bearing on the “whole person” concept and the needs of the Air Force at that time.  Counsel suggests that the IST panel did not use the “whole person concept” in determining the applicant’s fitness for reassignment as required per AFPCI 36-112.  However, the applicant’s decision to refuse to perform a duty that was expected of him was a critical and proper element to be considered in the whole person process.  Another aspect of counsel’s argument is that fairness and application of the whole person concept should have resulted in the applicant being reclassified into the Acquisitions career field.  What counsel ignores is AFPCI 36-112, paragraph 3.1.1., which states that prior to each IST board, HQ USAF/A1 determines which career fields will be available for reassignment at that board, based on the needs of the Air Force at that time; i.e., not every career field is available at every IST board.  According to the instructions furnished to applicant’s IST panel, the Acquisitions career field was not available to any member meeting the board.  Thus, what counsel argues should have been the result at the board was not even an option.  Moreover, the aspects of the applicant’s record that counsel argues compelled reassignment were most certainly considered by the panel members.  In accordance with AFPCI 36-112, the initial review and recommendation was made by five disinterested senior officers, who by charter of the Secretary of the Air Force, acted in the best interest of the Air Force.

Counsel next argues that the applicant was treated differently than other similarly situated officers; however, the non-line reclassification board process was not implemented until 2010.  In fact, the first version of AFPCI 36-112, which created the procedures for the reclassification board process, was dated 13 April 2010.  Therefore, any officers who were eliminated from initial skills training prior to that date had to be reclassified because the Air Force had no mechanism to discharge them for their failure in training.  As for other officers who appear to be similarly situated to the applicant who met an IST board and were reclassified, the fact is their situations were not identical to the applicant.  They are not privy to other officer’s records or to information as to what career fields were available at the time of their boards, and neither they nor the applicant’s counsel are in a position to state that any of them were identically situated as the applicant.

The applicant’s discharge was based on legal and appropriate discretionary decisions made by the responsible Air Force authorities - from the training commander, to the IST panel, 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 that experienced by many other officers similarly situated during force drawdown periods.  This action did not constitute an error or injustice suffered by the applicant and there is no evidence in the case file that proves, or even suggests, that the Air Force officials responsible for the separation and recoupment decisions acted arbitrarily or abused their discretion.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit E.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Board sent copies of the Air Force evaluations to counsel on 19 February 2016, for comment and notified him that the applicant failed to exhaust other administrative avenues of relief described in the advisory opinions.  Counsel was invited to administratively close the case until the applicant was able to avail himself of these avenues of relief.  Counsel replied on 10 March 2016, and requested the case be administratively closed (Exhibit G). 

Via DD Form 149, dated 18 August 2017, counsel requested the case be reopened and reiterated his previous contentions.  In support of the applicant’s requests, counsel resubmits the applicant’s initial DD Form 149, with attachments, his submission to the Secretary of the Air Force Remissions Board, and other documents related to his appeal.  Counsel’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit I.

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The application was timely filed.

2.  The applicant exhausted all available avenues of non-judicial relief before applying to the Board.

2.  The applicant did exhaust all available avenues of non-judicial relief before applying to the Board.  The Board does not consider applications without documentation showing exhaustion of such avenues of relief.

3. After thoroughly reviewing all Exhibits, it is the Board’s opinion that the applicant is not the victim of an error or injustice.  The Board concurs with the rationale and recommendation of AFPC/DP3SP, AFPC/DPSOR, and AFPC/JA and finds that a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  Therefore, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.

4.  The applicant has not shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel would materially add to the Board’s understanding of the issues involved.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The applicant be informed the evidence did not demonstrate material error or injustice, and the application will only be reconsidered upon receipt of relevant evidence not already considered by the Board.

CERTIFICATION:

The following quorum of the Board, as defined in Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR), paragraph 1.5, considered Docket Number BC-2015-01459, in Executive Session on 11 October 2018:

, Panel Chair
 , Panel Member
 , Panel Member

All members voted not to correct the record.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 20 November 2014.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Advisory opinion, AFPC/DPSIP, dated 14 August 2015.
Exhibit D:	Advisory opinion, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 21 October 2015.
Exhibit E:	Advisory opinion, AFPC/JA, dated 3 November 2015.
Exhibit F:	Notification of Advisories, SAF/MRBC to counsel, dated 19 February 2016.
Exhibit E:	Counsel’s request to administratively close, dated 10 March 2016.
Exhibit F:	Notification of administrative closure, SAF/MRBC, dated 30 March 2016.
Exhibit G: Counsel’s request to administratively reopen, w/atchs, dated 18 August 2017.

Taken together with all Exhibits, this document constitutes the true and complete Record of Proceedings required by AFI 36-2603, paragraph 4.11.9.