RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-03091
                       INDEX CODE: 104.4

      XXXXXX     COUNSEL:  None

      XXXXXX     HEARING DESIRED:  No


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be allowed to return to the United States Air Force Academy (USAFA).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The Air Force Academy did not  follow  proper  written  procedures  and  the
Academy did not act in a moral or professional manner.  The  Air  Force  has
attempted to cover up the situation.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a statement from his father  and
official Air Force Academy documents.

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 18 June 1996, the applicant was appointed a cadet in  the  United  States
Air Force Academy.

On 1 May 1997, a Report of Conduct, AFCW  Form  10,  was  completed  on  the
applicant.  The reason for the  report  was  that  on  29  April  1997,  the
applicant, with two other cadets, left    Hall  after  Dormitory  Inspection
(approximately 0010 hours), and proceeded off base to  go  to    restaurant.
The cadets returned at 0214 hours to the gate, upon  which  their  IDs  were
checked and names were taken by an  Air  Officer  Commanding  attending  the
gate and the Security Police.

On 6 May 1997, the applicant was notified he was  being  placed  on  conduct
and aptitude probation.

On  19  May  1997,  the  applicant  acknowledged  receipt   of   letter   of
notification and indicated he would  make  an  appointment  with  the  Cadet
Counseling/Leadership  Development   Center   for   Conduct   and   Aptitude
Probation, Behavioral/Leadership.

On 23 May 1997, the Academic Review Committee (ARC) notified  the  applicant
they considered his case for deficiency in: failed CHEM 142, failed  PHYSICS
110, semester  grade  point  average  1.26,  and  two  sequential  deficient
semesters.   They  recommended  that  he   be   disenrolled   for   academic
deficiency.

On 27 May  1997,  the  applicant  acknowledged  receipt  of  the  letter  of
notification and requested a personal appearance to present his case  before
his case was forwarded to the Academy Board for consideration.

On 3 June 1997, the applicant submitted his retention request to the ARC.

On 20 June 1997, the Superintendent, USAFA, notified the applicant  that  he
was no longer qualified as a candidate for graduation and commissioning,  in
accordance with AFI 36-2020.

The ARC meets at the end of every semester to evaluate cadets who  have  had
a deficient semester.  A cadet has a deficient semester if either the  cadet
has a Grade Point Average of less than 2.0 or if the cadet  fails  a  class.
The ARC process is conducted in two stages.  During  the  first  stage,  the
cadet’s academic record  is  reviewed  to  determine  the  severity  of  the
deficiency.  The committee then votes on whether or not the  cadet  has  the
potential to succeed academically at the Academy and if the cadet should  be
recommended for disenrollemnt.  If the committee  recommends  disenrollment,
the cadet is afforded an  opportunity  to  come  before  the  committee  and
present reasons why disenrollment is not  appropriate.   After  this  second
meeting the committee makes a final recommendation  regarding  disenrollment
or retention.   The  case  is  then  reviewed  by  the  Superintendent,  who
considers the recommendation of the ARC and the cadet’s entire record.   The
Superintendent is the final disenrollment authority on  academic  deficiency
cases.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Cadet Adverse Actions, USAFA/JA,  reviewed  the  application  and
states that in the applicant’s first academic semester  at  the  Academy  he
failed his Chinese class.  The class  failure  thus  made  that  semester  a
deficient semester, and the
applicant was placed on academic probation and retained at the Academy.   In
his second semester, the applicant started off doing well, and  at  mid-term
was taken off academic probation.  However, during the second  part  of  the
semester he was involved in incidents of  misconduct  and  his  grades  fell
drastically.  He finished the semester failing two classes, which again  put
him on academic probation  and  necessitated  a  review  by  the  ARC.   The
applicant was also placed on Conduct and Aptitude probation as a  result  of
his misconduct during the semester.   The  applicant’s  father  has  written
seven times to the Academy and to congressmen about his son’s  case.   Based
upon these letters, the Inspector  General  on  the  Academy  has  conducted
several reviews of the applicant’s ARC  proceeding  and  his  disenrollment.
During these reviews the members of the ARC were contacted, and  all  stated
that  the  proceedings  was  fair  and  conducted  properly,  but  that  the
applicant  had  put  very  little  effort  into  his  preparation   of   the
proceedings.  The applicant was allowed to  give  his  presentation  to  the
Committee,  and  the  Committee  asked  him  questions,  which  is  standard
procedure.  All of these reviews showed that the applicant was afforded  all
of  the  applicable  rights  in  the  ARC  process.    Following   the   ARC
proceedings, the Superintendent reviewed the case and the cadet  record  and
ordered the applicant’s disenrollment.

USAFA/JA  also  states  that  he  contacted  the  applicant’s  Air   Officer
Commanding (AOC) and he denies harassing the applicant  at  any  time.   The
AOC did notice that the applicant’s attitude at the  Academy  was  declining
considerably, and talked to him about the option of resignation  if  he  did
not truly want  to  be  at  the  Academy.   Even  after  several  counseling
sessions, the applicant’s attitude continued to decline.

USAFA/JA further states that the Academy is  satisfied  that  the  applicant
was treated fairly while at the Academy, and that his  entire  disenrollment
process was conducted in accordance  with  due  process  considerations  and
applicable Academy and Air Force regulations.  They urge the Board  to  deny
all relief requested.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to  the  applicant
on 25 January 1999, for review and response.  As of this date,  no  response
has been received by this office.

The applicant’s father has submitted a statement in response  to  USAFA/JA’s
evaluation.  The father states that at no time has he ever charged that  the
Academy failed to follow Air Force
regulations.  He does think the review was flawed and unethical.  He  thinks
the real truth comes from Lt Col P--- F---,  Congressional  Liaison  Office.
In November 1997, she writes of  all  the  problems  that  his  son  had  or
allegedly had.  He  (father)  wrote  over  and  over  to  the  Academy  with
documentation,  their  documentation,  disputing  the  dismissal.    On   11
September 1998, Congressman John     received  a  letter  telling  what  the
applicant must do to be readmitted.  If the things that  the  AOC  presented
at the ARC were true, the Academy would never allow his son to  return.   Lt
Col  F---  took  the  time  to  review  the  facts  and  look  at  all   the
documentation and came  to  the  conclusion  that  a  grave  misjustice  was
committed.  She wrote in June 1998 and explained what his son must do to  be
readmitted.  They contacted the Academy and were told that it was  too  late
for his son to be readmitted.  Over a year ago  he  wrote  and  stated  that
there had to be someone in authority at the Academy with  the  integrity  to
right a moral wrong.  He now admits that this is an unreal request.  Two  or
three star generals have signed their name to  this  disenrollment.   It  is
true that they only were aware of the process but they did agree.  It  would
be career suicide for a subordinate to be so insolent as  to  disagree.   He
asks the Board to review all the facts and make a decision of conscience.

His father’s complete response, with attachments, is attached 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  probable   error   or   injustice.    After   reviewing   the
circumstances surrounding the applicant’s dismissal from the  United  States
Air Force Academy and the documentation submitted in support of his  appeal,
we find no  error  or  injustice.  It  appears  that  responsible  officials
applied appropriate standards in the applicant’s disenrollment process,  and
we do not find persuasive evidence that pertinent regulations were  violated
or that the applicant was not afforded all the rights to which  entitled  at
the time of  disenrollment.   The  applicant  alleges  that  the  Air  Force
attempted to cover up the  situation.   However,  we  find  no  evidence  to
support this allegation.  In view of the  above  determination,  we  are  in
agreement with the opinion and recommendation of USAFA/JA  and  adopt  their
rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant  has  not  been
the victim of an error or injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of  evidence
to the contrary, 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 13 July 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Panel Chair
      Mr. William H. Anderson, Member
      Ms. Barbara J. White-Olson, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 2 Nov 98, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, USAFA/JA, dated 15 Dec 98.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated ?.
      Exhibit E. Applicant’s Response, dated 29 Jan 99, w/atchs.




                             Panel Chair