RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-00294 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. The language on his DD Form 785, Record of Disenrollment from Officer Candidate – Type Training, be changed. 2. The debt established, approximately $107,340.00, for his United States Air Force Academy (USAFA) education be rescinded. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 1. The wording in his DD Form 785 is false and deceitful. The procedures for completing a DD Form 785 are contained in AFI36- 2012, Record of Disenrollment from Officer Candidate-Type Training – DD Form785, and are quite specific; however, his DD Form 785 contains falsehoods and is written in a highly inflammatory and prejudicial manner. The statements indicating he was involuntarily disenrolled for two violations of the Cadet Disciplinary System: “for having an unprofessional relationship with a female fourth-class cadet” and “for maintaining an off base residence,” are true. The statement “In addition, he was on aptitude and conduct probation,” is false. He was placed on aptitude and conduct probation because he was found guilty of fraternization and having the off base house. This statement as written implies that he was already on aptitude and conduct probation and yet he still decided to date a freshman and lease a house off base. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is a seemingly small grammatical error, but the implications are huge. He thinks that it was worded that way to make him appear in the most negative light possible. 2. He objects to the Air Officer Commanding’s (AOC) statement “he seems to show a lack of moral compass by blatantly breaking rules,” for several reasons. The statement is nonspecific in reference to the offenses committed, but it implies that there is a pattern of offenses. There is not. Secondly, if this were a court of law, that statement would most certainly be deemed inadmissible as being hearsay. Lastly, “lack of moral compass” is a highly inflammatory buzzword statement used to denigrate and belittle. Regarding the part of the statement pertaining to “blatantly breaking the rules,” he admittedly broke two rules, neither of which he would call blatant. Breaking the honor code, DUI, cheating or using drugs are certainly blatant. He is not guilty of any of those offenses. He had one LOC his sophomore year because he had a refrigerator in his room. Again, the writer of the remarks section used words designed to be as inflammatory as possible. 3. His cumulative grade point average (GPA) was 2.40, cumulative military performance average (MPA) was 2.73, and cumulative physical education average (PEA) was 2.08. An MPA of 2.73 is impossible for a cadet that would have already been on aptitude and conduct probation prior to being found guilty of dating a Cadet 4th Class (C4C) and maintaining an off base residence. He arrived at the Air Force Academy as a 313-pound, all-state offensive lineman. He turned down a scholarship to a Southeastern Conference (SEC) university to attend the Air Force Academy. Most of his MPA hits were due to his weight checks after leaving the football team, not because he was guilty of blatantly breaking rules. 4. Additionally, he objects to the statement that he “has incurred a two-year Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) but should not be considered for future officer training.” If the conviction for having an off base residence is vacated, he would be down to 110 demerits and would no longer be considered for disenrollment and he would graduate from the Air Force Academy. But he no longer wants to attend the Air Force Academy. The Air Force Academy acted poorly and without honor. An institution is only as strong as its people. If the AOC is the best the Air Force has to offer, then he thinks he will try the Army or Navy. The AOC took all the power available to him and used it to destroy his life, his ultimate goal of getting him disenrolled and having to reimburse the government over $100,000., being attained. It was an absolute abuse of power and manipulation of the system. 5. In a perfect world, his records would be changed and he would be found highly recommended for commissioning in the Air Force. It was his dream since he was 14 years old, the year his grandfather died, to graduate from the Air Force Academy and fly for his country. He would still like to have that option though he is sure he will not. He will serve the two years enlisted if need be, but he definitely wants to have the office of the SECAF rescind the order requiring him to reimburse the government $107,340. Unfortunately, he does not have the money and in today's economy, he does not know when he will have that kind of money. In support of his request, the applicant provides his personal statement, DD Form 785, witness statements, a copy of a letter written to the Secretary of the Air Force in his behalf, and email correspondence. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: According to available records, the applicant entered USAFA on 28 June 2007 and was released on 13 February 2010. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 1. USAFA/JA states they recommend denial of the applicant's request to change the language and numerical rating on his DD Form 785; however, they concur with the applicant that his MPA and GPA are inaccurate. The MPA and GPA should have been based on calculations on the date of his disenrollment. The numerical rating should not be changed as it was assigned by the Superintendent after having considered the circumstances surrounding the applicant's misconduct along with all of the other entries in the applicant's personnel folder and the proposed DD Form 785 language was approved by the Superintendent as well. 2. On 28 June 2007, the applicant entered the USAF Academy (USAFA) to begin basic cadet training. On 4 November 2009, the applicant was placed on conduct and aptitude probation after he admitted to engaging in an unprofessional relationship with a female fourth-class cadet and maintaining an off-base residence. The Commandant of Cadets initiated a Hearing Officer review to determine the facts and the applicant's possible disenrollment. The applicant waived his right to a formal Hearing Officer review and elected to submit written matters in support of his request for retention. On 15 December 2009, the Commandant considered the applicant's matters and elected to forward the case to the USAFA Superintendent with a recommendation that the applicant be disenrolled and given a general, under honorable conditions discharge. On 15 January 2010, the Superintendent considered the recommendation of the Commandant and supported the disenrollment but with an honorable rather than a general, under honorable conditions discharge characterization. The applicant received an honorable discharge characterization and was assigned a rating of “5 - Definitely not Recommended for Future Officer Training” on the DD Form 785. 3. On 13 February 2010, the USAFA Superintendent, after having considered the applicant's written matters regarding how he would like to fulfill his Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC), recommended to the Secretary of the Air Force (SAF) that the applicant be sent to enlisted active duty for a period of two years in fulfillment of his ADSC. However, on 3 May 2010, the SAF determined the applicant should be ordered to monetarily reimburse the United States Government for the cost of his education expenses incurred while at USAFA. The applicant was ordered to pay $107,340. 4. While they are unable to address or remedy the applicant's request to have his SAF ordered monetary recoupment action rescinded, they are able to address his concerns with his DD Form 785. In this case, section III of the DD Form 785 correctly states the circumstances surrounding the applicant's factual situation at the time of his disenrollment from USAFA. The applicant was in fact involuntarily disenrolled due to his own misconduct. The section IV remarks are a continuation of the comments in section III. Though the applicant repeatedly discusses his previous athletic probation in his matters, it is only his conduct and aptitude probation at issue. The applicant was placed on a six-month probation for his conduct and aptitude issues on 4 November 2009. He was never removed from that probation from 4 November 2009, until the day he was disenrolled on 15 January 2010. Therefore, it is a factual statement that the applicant was on aptitude and conduct probation at the time of his disenrollment. 5. Next, the applicant takes issue with his Air Officer Commanding (AOC), Major P’s, assessment of him as a future officer candidate when he commented that the applicant “seems to show a lack of moral compass by blatantly breaking rules.”· This was the assessment of the applicant's immediate commander, on the USAFA Form O-299 he accomplished on 12 November 2009. It was not Major P's recommendation that the final DD Form 785 include that assessment. That was the suggested DD Form 785 language for the applicant's DD Form 785 as proposed by the USAFA Deputy Staff Judge Advocate, Lt Col R. It was approved by the USAFA Superintendent in the disenrollment staff package. Those quotes were not selected because the Deputy Staff Judge Advocate was seeking highly flammable and prejudicial language meant to denigrate and belittle the applicant, but rather because those quotes capture the immediate commander’s assessment of the applicant that fit in the limited space on the DD Form 785. The processing of the applicant's case and DD Form 785 were handled no differently than any other cadet disenrolled from USAFA. 6. The applicant states that it is impossible for him to have a cumulative MPA of 2.73 based on his being on conduct and aptitude probations for his misconduct. Though not necessarily impossible, they concur that his MPA is significantly lower than reported on his DD Form 785. The GPA, MPA, and PEA calculations for the applicant as reported on his DD Form 785 were as of 18 December 2009. This was at the end of the Fall 2009 semester where final grades and MPA scores were still being finalized. Therefore, the applicant received the benefit of having his MPA reported on the DD Form 785 as of the end of the Spring 2009 semester, which did not account for his conduct and aptitude probation and over 200 demerits that occurred during the Fall 2009 semester. When they assessed the MPA calculation as of the date of his disenrollment in January 2010, his MPA was in fact 2.51. Further, his GPA after all of his Fall 2009 grades posted was in fact 2.31 vice 2.40. Therefore, they concur with those factual inaccuracies as of the date of applicant's disenrollment and do not object to his GPA and MPA being adjusted to reflect the actual numbers as of the date he was disenrolled. The applicant's PEA as reported on his DD Form 785 is accurate as of the date of his disenrollment as it was 2.08 on 18 December 2009, as well as on 15 January 2010. 7. The last point the applicant argues regarding his DD Form 785 is that the numerical rating of “5” is not the appropriate rating as he: “broke no laws, did not violate the honor code, did not drink while underage nor supply alcohol to underage persons, did not leave the base without permission nor did he use drugs, to include marijuana or spice.” The guidance from AFI 36-2012, states a “5” rating should be assigned to those whose aptitude or personal behavior have consistently failed to meet the minimum standards. While the applicant states he believes a “5” rating is inappropriate because he does not have a documented history of serious problems as shown by repeated placement on probation or involvement in some illegal or immoral activity, such as involvement with drugs (to include marijuana), sexual misbehavior, and/or indifference to training, those are not the only criteria for command to use in determining whether a “5” rating is appropriate or not. Deficiency in conduct or aptitude is also a criteria for determining if a “5”·rating is appropriate and the applicant did have evidence of conduct and aptitude issues that ultimately resulted in his being placed on conduct and aptitude probation. The applicant's entire chain- of-command supported the “5” rating based on his entire record. The USAFA Superintendent assigns the DD Form 785 rating of all cadets who leave USAFA. He has the benefit of assessing the egregiousness of each USAFA cadet case when they depart USAFA and determining an appropriate rating. Based on the applicant's entire record, the USAFA Superintendent determined a “5” rating to be the appropriate rating in this case. 8. The applicant was held accountable for his misconduct as USAFA would hold any cadet accountable for misconduct. The applicant acknowledges that as a cadet third class, he visited several cadet off-base residences and that he knew of at least ten such off-base residences at the time of his disenrollment. As a military member, their expectation would have been for him to share his knowledge of these off-base residences so those cadets could be held accountable for their misconduct as the applicant was held accountable. However, to date, the applicant takes the position that he is not inclined to name the cadets who allegedly have these off-base residences even though he acknowledges in his own matters that paragraph 2.3, of Commandant of Cadets Instruction 51-201, states any individual who has knowledge of misconduct should contact the Air Officer Commanding (AOC), Academy Military Trainer (AMT), Cadet Squadron Commander, or any permanent party personnel or proper military/civilian law enforcement authorities. They will share the applicant's concerns regarding the alleged misconduct of others in the Cadet Wing with the command in the Cadet Wing; however, without cooperation from the applicant and/or other witnesses to this alleged misconduct, USAFA's ability to investigate is limited. The applicant also acknowledges that he received counsel from his parents to avoid engaging in an unprofessional relationship with a cadet - fourth class and to avoid maintaining an off-base residence while a USAFA cadet yet he failed to heed that advice. The complete USAFA/JA advisory, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 1. In his response, the applicant indicates he disputes USAFA/JA’s recommendations concerning his request to change the language on the DD Form 785. He again renews his protests that the statements on the DD Form 785 are misleading and highly inflammable. He suggests using words that “paint an accurate word picture that depicts events as they occurred.” The Secretary of the Air Force (SAF) decided otherwise on the recommendation from the USAFA that he serve two years enlisted duty to fulfill his ADSC. If the SAF read any part of his package it would have been the DD Form 785. It is not unreasonable for him to ask that the form be both fair and factual as opposed to misleading and inflammatory. 2. He further expands on points mentioned by USAFA/JA as follows: a. His intention in “repeatedly discussing his athletic probation” was to show that he had no history of behavioral issues prior to his admission of guilt. His prior academic issues were short lived and corrected. b. In the matter of his GPA, MPA, and PEA, his grades suffered because while going through the interrogations as to whether or not he would still be a cadet at the academy, he was told not to purchase textbooks. Additionally, his grades suffered as he dealt with the issues of his girlfriend having a mental breakdown with suicidal inclinations, the recommendation for his disenrollment, and the fact that he was removed from the squadron and was in a solitary type confinement for the rest of his time at the academy. c. Regarding the USAFA/JA expectation that he would contact the military staff to inform on cadets whom he knew to be guilty of misconduct, he states there are two types of persons that tear apart the fabric and cohesiveness of a military unit, thieves and informants. The majority of the persons he knew who were guilty of misconduct have graduated and those that have not graduated will do so in just a few months. He did report on a cadet for having unauthorized off-base employment and then subsequently breaking the honor code by lying to him when she denied having the job. However, there was no action taken. The cadet he reported on won the cadet squadron commander of the year award at graduation. Enforcement is evidently arbitrary and capricious. The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E. ________________________________________________________________ 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. After careful consideration of the applicant’s request, to include his rebuttal comments, and the available evidence of record, we are not persuaded that corrective action is warranted. The facts and opinions stated in the advisory opinion appear to be based on the evidence of record and have not been adequately rebutted by the applicant. Absent persuasive evidence the applicant’s DD Form 785, Record of Disenrollment from Officer Candidate – Type Training, and his subsequent debt were improperly established, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. The Board notes USAFA/JA concurs that the GPA and MPA calculation are factually inaccurate as of the date of applicant's disenrollment and do not object to his GPA and MPA being adjusted to reflect the actual numbers as of the date he was disenrolled. However, we see no benefit to the applicant in adjusting the GPA and MPA calculations to render significantly lower calculations than reported as of the date his DD Form 785 was accomplished. 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. 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 issue(s) involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. ________________________________________________________________ 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 this application in Executive Session on 24 October 2013, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-00294: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 25 Dec 2012, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, USAFA/JA, dated 21 Feb 2013, w/atchs. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Feb 2013. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 27 Mar 2013.