AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE M 

TTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  97- 03098 

HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

OCT  2 7  1388 

c 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

The reason for his disenrollment from the United States Air Force 
Academy  (USAFA) be changed to resignation for personal reasons. 
His  officer  training  evaluation  be  changed  to  read  "highly 
recommended. 

His two-year active duty service commitment be nullified. 

Any and all other records be changed as necessary to reflect that 
he was not disenrolled for an honor violation. 

He be provided any and all other or alternative relief, remedies, 
compensation,  benefits,  and  actions  that  the  Board  deems 
necessary  and  appropriate  in  its  sound  discretion  within  the 
limits of  its  authority, including expenses  and  representation 
fees  incurred  in pursuing  this matter  if  authorized  by  law or 
regulation. 

.

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

I

- -- 

- 

He was disenrolled from the Air Force Academy for  an honor code 
violation while  a  very  similarly  situated  black  cadet  received 
only  six  months  honor  probation  for  virtually  the  same  honor 
breach; that is, cheating on a homework assignment. 
In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a statement from 
counsel, a  DD  Form  785,  Record  of  Disenrollment  from  Officer 
Candidate  -  Type  Training, and  other documents  associated  with 
the matter under review, including a  letter from the Deputy of 
Equal Opportunity, and a memorandum from the Director, Air Force 
Review Boards Agency. 

L 

Applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit A. 

- 

r 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
The applicant was  formerly a cadet  first class  (senior). at  the 
Air Force Academy. 
Available documentation reflects that, on 8 May 96, the applicant 
was  notified  of  an  investigation  into  allegations  that  he 
violated the Air Force Academy Honor Code for cheating by copying 
last  semester's Civil  Engineering  (CE) 362  work  and  properly 
documenting  that  he  used  that  assistance  for  this  semester's 
assignment # 5 .  
On 20 Jun 96, an Admitted Honor Investigation Panel  (A-HIP) found 
that, on 18 Apr 96, the applicant had violated the Honor Code. 
On 25 Jul 96, the Commander, 34th Training Wing, recommended that 
the applicant be disenrolled from the Air Force Academy. 
In  a  Disenrollment  Notification  Letter,  dated  4  Sep  96,  the 
Superintendent,  Headquarters  United  States  Air  Force  Academy, 
indicated that the applicant was unqualified as a candidate for 
graduation and commissioning.  He recommended that the applicant 
be  honorably  discharged  from  the  Air  Force. 
The  applicant 
acknowledged receipt on 5 Aug 96. 
The  Secretary of  the  Air  Force  Personnel  Council  received  the 
case on 16 Sep 96.  On 20 Sep 9 6 ,   the Air Force Personnel Board 
(AFPB) considered the case and voted  to return the case to the 
Air Force Academy for further review.  While the Board recognized 
that  disenrollment  may  have  been  appropriate,  the  Board  was 
concerned with  the  appearance  of  inconsistent treatment  in the 
apparently similar cases of the applicant and another cadet.  On 
3  Oct 96, the Secretary of the Air Force returned the 'case to the 
Air  Force Academy to give the Superintendent the opportunity to 
review the cases together. 
On  16  Oct  96, the  Superintendent  responded  to  the  Secretary's 
inquiry and adhered to his original recommendation.  On-CSINQv 96, 
the  AFPB  again  considered  the  case.  The  Board  could  find  no 
persuasive  basis  for  distinguishing  between  the  two  cases  and 
concluded the minor differences in the cases did not warrant the 
very  different  outcomes.  In  order  to  promote  consistency  of 
treatment and to protect the Air Force's best interest, the Board 
unanimously voted to retain the applicant, with honor probation. 
The  Director,  Air  Force  Review  Boards  Agency  disagreed  and 
recommended that the applicant be disenrolled. 
A DD Form 785 indicates that the applicant was disenrolled from 
the Air  Force Academy, on 12 Nov  96  for a breach  of  the Cadet 
Honor Code. 

- 

2 

AFBCMR 97-03098 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
The  Office  of  the  Staff  Judge Advocate, HQ  USAFA/JA,  reviewed 
this application and recommended denial.  According to JA, there 
was neither discrimination nor inconsistent treatment involved in 
the applicant's honor case.  The case was decided independently 
upon  its  own  merits  by  the  highest  levels  of  command  at  the 
Academy  and  the  Air  Staff, including the  Secretary of  the Air 
Force.  The  applicant  committed  a violation  of  the  Honor  Code 
that was  deserving of disenrollment, and  none  of  his arguments 
can change that fact.  To grant the applicant the relief he seeks 
would cheapen the code of the honor under which all cadets-live 
and tie  the hands of  commanders when hard  decisions need to be 
made. 
A complete copy of the HQ USAFA/JA evaluation is at Exhibit B. 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

In his response, counsel indicated that they have no quarrel with 
the Honor Code and it principles.  If a violation of  any nature 
resulted  in  automatic  disenrollment,  there  would  be  few 
questions.  Since it does not operate in this manner, the Academy 
must  do  its  best  to  ensure  comparable  punishment  for 
substantially equal breaches.  In counsel's view, the Board must 
decide  whether  the  stated  and  few differences between  the  two 
cases justify the different results, or whether the overwhelming 
similarities  and  more  serious  misconduct  of  the  other  cadet 
mandate a decision favorable to the applicant. 
Counsel's complete response and  additional documentary evidence 
are at Exhibit D. 

- -- 

L 

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 
demonskrate the  existence of  probable  error or injustice.  The 
applicant's complete submission was thoroughly reviewed and his 
contentions  were  duly  noted. 
However,  we  do  not  find  the 
applicant's assertions  sufficiently persuasive  to  override  the 
rationale  provided  by  the  Air  Force  office  of  primary 
responsibility  (OPR) .  The evidence of record reflects that the 
applicant was disenrolled from the Air Force Academy for an honor 
code violation.  We  further note  that  the  Air  Force  Psrsonnel 
Board, concerned about  the appearance of  inconsistent treatment 

3 

AFBCMR 97-03098 

- 

regarding  the  applicant‘s  case  and  a  similar  case  of  another 
cadet, returned the applicant’s case to the Superintendent of the 
Air  Force  Academy  for  a  further  review. 
However,  the 
Superintendent  adhered  to  his  original  recommendation  that  the 
applicant be disenrolled from the Academy.  Notwithstanding their 
similarities,  in  our  view,  the  Superintendent was  in  the  best 
position  to  assess the merits  of  each  case.  Furthermore, the 
Secretary of the Air Force agreed with the recommendation of the 
Superintendent and  disenrolled  the  applicant  from the Academy. 
We are not inclined to disturb his discretionary judgment absent 
a strong showing of abuse of that authority.  Therefore, in the 
absence  of  evidence  which  shows  to  our  satisfaction  that_ the 
information  used  as  a  basis  for  the  applicant’s  disenrollment 
from the Air  Force Academy  was  erroneous, or that there was  an 
abuse  of  discretionary  authority,  we  agree  with  the 
recommendation of the OPR and adopt their rationale as the basis 
for  our  decision  that  the  applicant has  failed  to  sustain his 
burden of establishing that he has suffered either an error or an 
injustice.  Accordingly, we find no compelling 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  probable  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  9 Jul  98, under  the provisions of AFI  36- 
2603: 

Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Panel Chair 
Mr. Jackson A. Hauslein, Member 
Mr. Michael P. Higgins, Member 

- 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

-- 

L 

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 5 Oct 97, w/atchs. 
Exhibit B.  HQ USAFA/JA, dated 3 Dec 97. 
Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 5 Jan 97. 
Exhibit E.  Letter, counsel, dated 16 Jan 98, w/atch. 

j+-- 

I -   - Y - - - - -  
THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ 
Panel Chair 

4 

AFBCMR 97-03098 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 
H EADQWTERS UNlTED SfATES AIR FORCE ACADWY 

. 

. 

UgAF ACADEMY, COLDRAW 

3 December  1997 

MEMORANDUM FOR SAF/MIBR REVIEW BOARDS  OFFICE 
FROM: HQ USAFA/JA 

' 

2304 Cadet Drive Suite 231  . 
W A F  Academy CO  80840 - 5050 

1.  I have reviewed the application of -to 
submit the following as the Academy's  response. 

he documents contained in 
package sufficiently recite the facts of this case, so the general 

your Board and 

background will not be repeated here. 

essentially based upon either an idea of 

2,  -gumsnte.are 
discrimination or  inconsistency.  Both arguments are intertwined'to such a 
degree that they will be answered 
Force Academy's bottom line is that 
Cadet Wing Hanor Code (Honor 
poor candidate for graduation and commissioning from the. Academy.  He was 
disenrolled far thia violation in accordance with long-standing regulations.  Tbc 
mission of the Air Force Academy is to produce the highest qurrlity officers to 
take the load in tomorrow's  Air Force.  All levels of command at the Academy 
take this mission very seriously and make disenrollmem deeisions.with great 
. 
Eare--did 
candidateset 
becoming a graduate of this institution. 

following paragraphs.  The ,,ir 
committed a violation of the 
things considered, made him a 

e .Academy, and he was therefqre denied the privilege of 

not live up to the high standards expected of officer 

frequently mentions the similarity batweswhis case 
of 

However, a close look at the facts, espe 

 ' 

,

.

the Academy's  mission, reveals that the canes are not as simil 
would like them to appear. While it is true tha- 
bath in their second class year when their violations occurred 
attended the Air Force Preparatory School, which also has an- 
modeled after the Academy Honor Code.  This gave F
a
. 
year of experience with the Honor Code.  Experienoe un tr the Honor Code is an 
important factor in determining whether or not a cadet is internaiizin  the .ideals 

of the Honor Coda.  Furthermore, 'approximately one month before b -  

additional 

and 

n

 

.

.

 

 

: .! 
a
'
: I  

' 

1 

committed his Hqnor Cod  violation, he was present 
confronted about hi &Hqnor 
Code violation. 
that confrontation and knew clearly what -ad 
confrontation is a serious event that should have been an eye-opening cvtnt for 
was an experience he should not bave forgotten.  One 
heated on an assignment.  This failure to use an extra 

done.  This 

1 

r Code .as a guide or to benefit from his direct  .  * 
am says much about how well-hab. 

internalized the ideals of the Honor Code. 
4.  The more imporrant issue in this case concerns the ability of a commknder to 
make decisions b  ed upm his or her.assessment of a situation.  The resolution 
farce commanders to create an overwhelming 
proposed by &.would 
decision matrix and to makc each case fit into that matrix.  If this were possible 
(and I don't  believe it is) it would remove all discretion from a.commander's 
decision-making toolbox.  As I stated in paragraph 2, the Academy's purpose.is 
to train future officers to lead the Air Force.  It is not possible to set out a grdup 
'  of purely objective standards to use to decide who is and who is not qualified fur 
Each cadet disenrollmin't case is considered,on 
graduation and commissioning. 
its own merits, and all factors concerning that cadet, both objective'and 
subjective, we considered by the soveral commanders involved.  To do otherwise 
would deprive each cadet of a thorough review of his or'her iridividua 

' 

iffereat commander ths 
dependent decision o 
oomple t e' cadet reto 

cision, also making an' 
cord alone.  The qecretary'of 
imately supported the Academy's 

, 

- 

w a  
case.: That co 

- 

honor violatibn, consid 
Superiotanddnt of the Acad 
indepeddent decision based 
the'Ai&orcd,  who disenrolle 
recommendation. 

. 5.-r'equtsts 
the reason fqr his disenrallment,  changing his officer training evaluation and 
eliminating his active duty service commitment.  However, if the Board decides 
WBS unjustly discnrolled from the Academy the only proper-relief 'is 

that the Board grant him relief in the form of changing 

a  a cadet.  The relief he requests would be improper 

to reinstat 

for personal reasons in his senior year, he leaves 

service commitment of three y e a 1 p . e  

' 

the driving factor in what,  if any, relief is 
overall record at the Academy indicates he 
was an average cadct,'and had he resigned for personal reasons his officer 
training evaluation wbuld have been what it is now. It would be improper to  .  . 
change that evaluation to read Yhighly recommended'' when the Academy would 
never have made that recommendation for- 
under any circumstances.. 

. 

. 

. .  

.. 

.. 

- 

6.  There' was neither discrimination nor inconsistent treatment involved in- 
honor case.  The case was decided independently upon its own merits 
by the highest levels of command at the Academy and the Air  Staff, including 
a viofation of the Honor 
the Secretary of the Air Force. '-committed 
Coda that was deserving of disenrollmcnt, and none of his arguments can change 
that fact.  To grant 
he relief he seeks would.cEkapen the code of 

honor under which -F all ca  ets live and tie the handsaicommandtrs when hard  .  ' 

decisions need to beemade. The Academy respectfully requests that this board 
deny -request 

, for relief. 

Assistant S t a f r f u s  A w e

 

.

I

 

i

'

  . 

I 

.. 

I

'

 

. 

 

.
.
. .  

i 

 

.

1 i 
.
! . <  
i 
f 
.'. j 

. .  

'.  . i 
I I 

.

.

 

. .  

.

.

 

.

 

i
1 
3 

I r 

#

'

.

 

. '  . 

.. 

, 
., 

.

I

 

I

.