RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2020-01656

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  NONE

 	HEARING REQUESTED:  YES

APPLICANT’S REQUEST

His Officer Training School (OTS) End of Course Evaluation, dated 23 Sep 19, be changed to reflect he passed all performance evaluation areas.

By amendment dated 5 Feb 21, the applicant requested his disenrollment from OTS be overturned and as a result, his record be corrected as follows:

	a.	He receive a commission as an Air Force officer.
	b.	His rated Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) 92T2, Air Battle Management, be reinstated.
	c.	He receive the next available Initial Skills Training class date.
	d.	His assignment to Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida be reinstated.
	e.	His service record reflect “Graduation” from OTS Class XXXX.
	f.	He receive an apology from the OTS Commander.

APPLICANT’S CONTENTIONS

He demonstrated proficiencies in all six performance areas; however, his instructor recommended him for elimination due to failure of the Final Feedback.  After proving his officer leadership qualities, he was eliminated during graduation week.  The End of Course Evaluation was used to unjustly discharge him, never allowing him to commission.  

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant is an Air Force Reserve technical sergeant (E-6).

According to documentation provided by the applicant and analysis of the facts, the following information is provided:

On 10 Jan 19, the applicant was ordered to extended active duty to attend OTS Class XXXX.

On 6 Mar 19, the applicant was released from active duty and furnished a DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, with a separation code and corresponding narrative reason for separation of KHD, Failure to Complete Commissioning or Warrant Program.   
On 25 Jul 19, he was ordered to extended active duty to attend OTS Class XXXX.

On 23 Sep 19, the applicant received his final course feedback stating, “You passed 3 of 6 performance areas, therefore, you fail End of Course Feedback. Per the syllabus, passing 5 of 6 performance areas is required to pass feedback.” 

On 26 Sep 19, according to DD Form 785, Record of Disenrollment from Officer Candidate – Type Training, he was disenrolled from OTS due to a military training deficiency.  

On 26 Sep 19, the applicant was released from active duty and furnished a DD Form 214 with a separation code and corresponding narrative reason for separation of KHD, Failure to Complete Commissioning or Warrant Program.  

On 5 Dec 20, the applicant requested additional time to prepare a response to the advisory.  

On 19 Jan 21, the AFBCMR granted the applicant’s request for additional time and administratively closed his case.  

On 5 Feb 21, the applicant’s case was reopened.

For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B and the advisory opinions at Exhibits C, G, and J.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION

OTS/CC recommends denying the application.  Based on the documentation provided by the applicant and analysis of the facts, there is no evidence of an error or injustice.  In accordance with (IAW) the OTS syllabus (Table 2.1), the End of Course Evaluation is a graduation requirement and each trainee must pass five of six areas.  Since the applicant only passed three of the evaluation areas, he did not pass the End of Course Evaluation; therefore, he did not complete all graduation requirements.

The complete advisory opinion is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION

The Board sent a copy of the advisory opinion to the applicant on 26 Aug 20 for comment (Exhibit D).  In his response dated 5 Feb 21, the applicant contended he experienced a great deal of frustration when he recognized that he was treated differently than his classmates.  The injustice he faced was not one major event, but an aggregate of smaller constant transgressions.  He experienced personnel and pay issues, which caused tremendous hardships and led to both disenrollments.  The OTS staff were aware of these hardships and chose to disenroll him, rather than resolve the administrative issues and assist him in any shortcomings in his class assignments.

His instructors displayed a lack of professionalism by releasing his prior OTS attendance to his classmates, contributing to a dismal peer ranking among the class. Most importantly, the discrimination he faced from his instructors was unjust and directed only toward him during conversations, meetings, and ultimately in his performance ratings.  Even though he met all objective expectations, he was still disenrolled for artificial and illogical assertions.  

In support of his amended request, the applicant provided letters of support from a former Air Force recruiter and former subject matter expert on Officer Accessions. 

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit F.

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION

OTS/CC recommends denying the application.  The applicant did not provide any additional evidence to overturn the disenrollment.  According to the OTS syllabus, the End of Course Feedback is a graduation requirement.   The applicant claims his records incorrectly reflect him as a second lieutenant.  However, information was processed through the Military Personnel Data System prior to completion of the Commander’s Review (CR) process.  The CR was completed on 26 Sep 19 and the applicant was notified of his disenrollment and non-completion of the course.  Once a trainee has out-processed OTS, the training squadron no longer has access to their records.  Coordination was made between the training squadron and AFPC to make corrections accurately reflecting the applicant’s disenrollment.  

In addition, the applicant was not commissioned due to his disenrollment for failing to meet graduation criteria.  Since he did not complete the course and subsequently receive a commission, he cannot receive any projected AFSC.  There is no apology necessary or required from OTS for maintaining the integrity of their program and producing officers of character.  

The complete advisory is at Exhibit G.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION

The Board sent a copy of the advisory opinion to the applicant on 2 Jun 21 for comment (Exhibit H), and the applicant replied on 13 Jun 21.  In his response, he reiterated his contentions regarding racial discrimination and stressed his point that the OTS staff waited until the last week of curriculum to process his disenrollment, without giving him due process.  The applicant claimed his feedback does not reflect his accomplishments; rather, it focuses on isolated incidents that all trainees faced. However, some trainees who experienced poor performance or marginal evaluations were allowed to graduate without the same discriminatory practices.  He maintained that despite the obstacles thrown at him, he met or exceeded every challenge.  However, in the end, he succumbed to the instructors’ use of their power and positions over professionalism.

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit I.

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION
OTS/CC again recommends denying the application.  After careful review it has been determined that all disenrollment procedures in the applicant’s case were processed IAW OTS Syllabus and OTSI 36-1.  The End of Course Evaluation is a pass or fail event that requires trainees to pass five out of six pass or fail categories.  When the flight instructor and the reviewing authorities do not recommend a trainee for graduation, the training squadron commander determines if elimination action is appropriate.  Flight instructors give feedback based on this review to individual trainees during the last week of training.  This counseling summarizes the overall performance of the trainee throughout OTS.”

The applicant’s graded measurement and overall performance at OTS were reviewed and considered by his instructor, flight commander, squadron director of operations, squadron commander, the Holm Center Judge Advocate (HC/JA), and lastly by the OTS Commandant before determining that the applicant be disenrolled from the course.  All officers that conducted the disenrollment process were and continue to serve in good, honorable standing.  The multiple levels of review built into the disenrollment process are designed in part to ensure enforcement of the Air Force’s zero tolerance policy against discrimination.  They noted the officer who served as the applicant’s director of operations is African American and the officer who exercised final approval for the applicant’s disenrollment is a rated African American combat veteran.

The following is a detailed timeline and explanation of the disenrollment:

On 23 Aug 19, the applicant was put on Special Monitoring Status (SMS) due to a Lack of Adaptability (LOA).  LOA is defined by OTSI 36-1 as “the inability to adapt to or display the necessary physical psychological, or personality traits of an Air Force officer, or any trainee that lacks the personal capacity and inclination, whether natural or acquired, to adapt to military relationships, customs, and responsibilities that have become traditional and necessary in military service.”  His LOA stemmed from his inability to demonstrate respect for the chain of command and maintain professionalism despite repeated corrections by staff and peers.  As part of SMS, the applicant was given an Action Plan (AP).  Trainees are given APs in an effort to correct a deficiency and bring trainees up to standard.  A possible result of a CR is disenrollment from the course, so the importance of APs is high.  His AP included directions to write a two-page paper on bearing and discipline.  He was also directed to meet with three instructors outside his student squadron for mentorship on professionalism, and present a ten-minute brief to his instructor and flight on the topic.  The applicant was formally counseled on his SMS, AP, and the possibility that he would be entered into a CR if he did not meet expectations.  On 23 Aug 19, he acknowledged the counseling and elected not to provide a written response.

On 3 Sep 19, the applicant was given his mid-term feedback, which indicated he failed to meet expectations in the overall performance areas of leadership, professionalism, judgement and decisions, and communication.  According to the syllabus, mid-course feedback is not a graded measurement, but is required and provides trainees with a critical progress check on their development as an officer.  It also provides instructors a valuable opportunity to counsel and correct deficiencies.  The applicant acknowledged his failing marks and elected not to provide his instructor with a written response. 

At this point in the course and with over three weeks remaining, the applicant had been formally counseled twice regarding his lack of overall performance in critical areas and warned that failure to improve would result in course failure and potential disenrollment.

On 23 Sep 19, the applicant received his End of Course Evaluation/Final Feedback, which indicated a failure to meet the overall performance in leadership, professionalism, judgement and decisions, and communication.  His instructor who had closely observed, counseled, and evaluated him throughout the 40 training days of academics, flight leadership/followership, and field training provided the graded measurement.  In reviewing the applicant’s record, it is apparent that his behaviors and conduct consistently displayed a lack of professionalism in the way he communicated with staff, leaders, followers, and peers.  His behaviors are also characterized by blame shifting and deflecting responsibility from himself to either his peers or the OTS staff.  It is also evident that he was counseled multiple times and given opportunities for mentorship that should have resulted in marked improvement over the course of his training.  Additionally, his flight instructor conferred with the flight commander, squadron director of operations, and squadron commander before failing the applicant to ensure it was the right decision.  All officers unanimously agreed that he failed to fulfil the requirements outlined in the syllabus and demonstrate his professional fitness and character to serve and lead as an officer in the United States Air Force.  

The applicant claims that financial hardships were the cause of his disenrollment in OTS Class XXXX and again in Class XXXX.  However, trainees are advised through pre-class correspondence to have personal finances secured prior to arrival.  The applicant could have requested a later class through Air Force Recruiting Service if he had properly forecasted that his finances would be challenged by the short-notice class.  There is no record he made such a request for either class.  Nevertheless, once at OTS and understanding that he was not financially healthy, he could have requested a pay advance to cover his finances during both classes.  However, there is no record that he made such a request during either class.  Despite so much riding on his financial stability, the applicant appears to have been passive about preventing the problem in the first place, and again wholly lacking initiative to address the problem once it appeared.

The applicant failed his End of Course Evaluation, which is a pass/fail event and for which there is no second attempt or make-up assignment.  The failure placed him at the bottom of the class, and above him in the order of merit were all trainees who did not fail their End-of-Course Evaluation.

The applicant claims a staff member disclosed his disenrollment in OTS Class XXXX.  Based on an interview conducted during this review, staff members affirmed they did not disclose his previous disenrollment.  Rather, they recalled the applicant asking for advice on disclosure to his classmates regarding his previous disenrollment.  They advised that he should be truthful and transparent about his previous experience in such a demanding situation and sharing lessons learned and best practices with his flight mates.  It is evident the applicant disclosed his previous enrollment with his peers sometime during the fourth week of the course.  Of the applicant’s disclosure, one of his peers submitted the following as part of their fourth week feedback, “He dropped the bomb on us of him having been at OTS until week 7 back in January […].”
The End of Course Evaluation/Final Feedback occurred in the last week of his training, and the applicant was advised of his CR during an in-person meeting with his squadron commander on     23 Sep 19.  This is the earliest that he could have been advised of his failure and CR.  The staff’s intent was to give him the opportunity to make the necessary corrections to his behavior and performance to earn his commission.  IAW the OTS Syllabus and OTSI, he was provided three duty days to respond.  All of the applicant’s records were made available to him as required.  In addition, he could have requested an extension from the squadron commander, but elected not to do so.  The right to access and copy his records, seek counsel with the Area Defense Counsel, and request an extension were all detailed in the Letter/Receipt of Notification signed by the applicant on 23 Sep 19.  He was also provided an opportunity to request an additional meeting with his squadron commander, but elected not to do so.

The applicant contends that he was not afforded an opportunity to meet with the OTS Commandant; however, there is no record that he requested a meeting.  Although meeting with the Commandant is not part of the disenrollment process, the Commandant’s open door policy for trainees and staff would have certainly permitted a meeting had he requested one.

While the applicant claims three business days was not enough time to respond to the CR, he was able to complete and submit his response within roughly 48 hours on 25 Sep 19.  If three business days were not sufficient time to respond, he could have and should have requested an extension.

The OTS Syllabus does not allow the applicant another chance to address his End of Course Evaluation because there is not additional time in the syllabus.  Individuals may recycle into another class, but the applicant had already been afforded that opportunity.

On 7 Dec 19, in coordination with the Defense Finance and Accounting Service, the applicant’s separation was updated to reflect that he is no longer active duty.

His CR package was reviewed IAW OTSI 36-1, which included concurrence from his instructor, flight commander, director of operations, and squadron commander HC/JA with the final decision made by the OTS Commandant.

As the outline details, the applicant’s disenrollment was conducted professionally in accordance with the OTS Syllabus and applicable Air Force guidance.  The applicant’s experience at OTS was aimed at developing him into an officer of character committed to his oath, Air Force core values and creed.  Despite the concerted effort of the staff and his peers, the applicant was unable to complete the course satisfactorily and join the ranks as an officer in the United States Air Force.

The complete advisory opinion is at Exhibit J.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION

The Board sent a copy of the advisory opinion to the applicant on 9 Sep 21 for comment (Exhibit K), and the applicant replied on 27 Sep 21.  In his response, the applicant countered the assertions made in the OTS advisory.  He contended that his points of view vary significantly from those of the OTS leadership.  Their differences are relevant in how he was graded, treated, and singled out in various areas of training which made it difficult for him to obtain a satisfactory review from his flight commander.  While he understands the Air Force’s zero tolerance policy against discrimination, he noted that discrimination is subtle and very rarely presented as open and easily recognizable. 

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit L.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

1.  The application was timely filed.

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

3.  After an exhaustive review of all Exhibits, the Board concludes the applicant is not the victim of an error or injustice.  The Board concurs with the rationale and recommendation of OTS/CC and finds a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  The applicant contends a myriad of personnel and pay issues and that racial discrimination led to him being unjustly disenrolled from OTS without due process.  However, other than his own uncorroborated assertions, he has provided insufficient evidence his disenrollment was unjust or racially motivated.  The available evidence indicates the applicant was counseled multiple times and afforded opportunities to improve his performance and academic standing.  Despite counseling, he failed to improve in critical areas and was disenrolled due to a military training deficiency after failing his End of Course Evaluation.  Multiple levels of reviewing officials determined the applicant failed to fulfill graduation requirements outlined in the syllabus.  Based on the presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs and without evidence to the contrary, the Board finds the applicant's disenrollment was in compliance with appropriate directives.  Insufficient evidence has been presented to show he was not treated similarly to other trainees who fail to meet standards or that he was the victim of discrimination.  Therefore, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.

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

RECOMMENDATION

The Board recommends informing the applicant the evidence did not demonstrate material error or injustice, and the Board will reconsider the application only upon receipt of relevant evidence not already presented.

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-2020-01656 in Executive Session on 11 Jan 22:
, Panel Chair 
, Panel Member
, Panel Member

All members voted against correcting the record.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 21 Mar 20.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Advisory opinion, OTS/CC, w/atch, dated 17 Jul 20.
Exhibit D:	Notification of advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, mailed 26 Aug 20.
Exhibit E:  SAF/MRBC Administrative Closure, dated 19 Jan 21. 
Exhibit F:  Applicant’s response, 5 Feb 21.
Exhibit G:  Advisory opinion, OTS/CC, dated 7 May 21.
Exhibit H:  Notification of advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 2 Jun 21.
Exhibit I:  Applicant’s response, dated 23 Jun 21.
Exhibit J:  Advisory opinion, OTS/CC, dated 2 Sep 21.
Exhibit K: Notification of advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 9 Sep 21.
Exhibit L:  Applicant’s response, dated 27 Sep 21.

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