RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  00-01564
            INDEX CODE:  104.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His disenrollment from the United States Air Force Academy (USAFA)  be
declared void.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was wrongfully and unfairly disenrolled from the Air Force Academy.
 During a dinner conversation one evening, he  made  a  comment  of  a
sexually disparaging nature to  a  fellow  cadre.   He  was  initially
severely punished; restriction to quarters for six months,  100  hours
of marching, 100 demerits,  and  counseling.   He  began  serving  his
punishment, including attending counseling, when for  reasons  unknown
to him, his case was reopened and officials at the Academy  determined
that he was to be disenrolled.  The record is in error because he  was
initially punished for the incident in question.  His  punishment  was
rescinded without justification and  resulted  in  his  disenrollment.
His case went to the Secretary of the Air Force where  he  was  deemed
unfit to serve as an enlisted member of the Air Force even  though  he
received an honorable discharge from the Air Force.  He asks that  his
record be changed so that he can be freed  from  the  exorbitant  debt
(over $105,000) that has been levied against him for the  three  years
at the Academy.

In support of his request, the applicant submits a personal  statement
and additional documents associated  with  the  issues  cited  in  his
contentions.  These documents are appended at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered the United States Air Force  Academy  on  29 Jun
92.

A Report of Conduct,  AFCW  Form  10,  dated  23  Jan  95,  cites  the
applicant with “Unauthorized cadet maintaining/owning a vehicle within
150 mile radius of USAFA - First Offense.”  The applicant was  awarded
30 demerits for the incident by the awarding official on 25 Jan 95 and
the applicant signed the Form 10 on 27 Jan 95.

A Report of Conduct,  AFCW  Form  10,  dated  17  Jul  95,  cites  the
applicant with  Conduct  Unbecoming  an  Officer  Candidate,  Multiple
Incidents.  He was awarded leadership counseling,  100  demerits,  100
tours and restriction for 6 months by the awarding official  on  1 Aug
95.

On 1 Aug 95, the applicant  was  notified  by  the  numbered  training
commander of the disciplinary action to include conduct  and  aptitude
probation concerning his violation of “Conduct Unbecoming  an  Officer
Candidate.”

On 8 Sep 95, the USAFA Superintendent notified the applicant  that  he
was being recommended for disenrollment for aptitude deficiency by the
USAF Academy Military Review Committee  (MRC)  and  the  USAF  Academy
Board.  The USAFA Superintendent also recommended to the Secretary  of
the Air  Force  Personnel  Council  (SAF/PC)  that  the  applicant  be
disenrolled for aptitude deficiency, in accordance with  AFI  36-2020.
On  13  Feb  96,  the  Secretary  of  the  Air  Force   approved   the
recommendation  of  the  Superintendent,  USAFA,  to   disenroll   the
applicant and directed that he be honorably discharged  from  the  Air
Force.  The Secretary further found that  the  applicant’s  misconduct
was of such a serious nature that he was  unfit  for  enlistment  and,
therefore,  required  to  reimburse  the  Government  for  his   USAFA
education.

On 13 Feb  96,  the  applicant  was  honorably  discharged  under  the
provisions of AFR 36-2020  and  SECAF  Memo  13  Feb  96  (Involuntary
Disenrollment).  At the time of his  discharge,  he  had  completed  3
years, 7 months and 15 days of active service.

The relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the
letter  prepared  by  the  appropriate  office  of  the   Air   Force.
Accordingly, there is no need to recite these facts in this Record  of
Proceedings.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Staff Judge Advocate, HQ USAFA/JA, stated that, on 14  Aug  95,  a
Military  Review  Committee  (MRC)  recommended  disenrollment  action
against the applicant, then a 1st Classman (senior), at the Air  Force
Academy, for receiving over 100 demerits within  a  six-month  period.
The Superintendent  considered  the  recommendation  of  the  MRC  and
referred the case to the Academy Board.  The Academy Board recommended
disenrollment.  The Superintendent concurred and forwarded the case to
the Secretary of the Air Force for final decision.  On 13 Feb 96,  the
SECAF  approved  the  recommendation  for  disenrollment  and  ordered
monetary recoupment of educational expenses.

JA responded  to  specific  questions  the  applicant  raised  in  his
application (refer to Exhibit C).

JA recommended that the applicant’s request be denied.   JA  indicated
that no evidence has been presented to show that the applicant was not
afforded complete due process and therefore he should not receive  any
relief from his  disenrollment  and  consequent  indebtedness  to  the
United States Government.  A  complete  copy  of  this  evaluation  is
appended at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant  reviewed  the  advisory  opinion  and  indicated  that  the
Military Review Committee (MRC) should have never been convened and he
should have never been disenrolled.  On his Cadet Performance  Summary
and Evaluation, dated 4 Aug 95, he  had  zero  (0)  demerits  for  the
current six-month total.  After the incident, his punishment  included
100 demerits.  This is clearly not over or  more  than  100  demerits,
which would have given the Academy  cause  to  convene  an  MRC.   His
argument regarding this point is simple, because the MRC  should  have
never happened, all events following it should be null and  void.   In
addition, he states that there is no  documentation  in  his  file  or
accompanying the  memorandum  to  support  the  accusation  “XXXXXXXXX
sexist  and  derogatory  comments  about  women  cadets  in  front  of
impressionable new cadets was frequent before the 13 Jul 95 incident.”

Applicant’s complete response is appended at Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing  law
or regulations.

2.  The application was not  timely  filed;  however,  it  is  in  the
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the  existence  of  probable  error  or  injustice.   The  applicant’s
complete submission was thoroughly reviewed and his  contentions  were
duly noted.  However, a review of the evidence does not  cause  us  to
believe that the actions taken to initiate consideration of his record
by the Military Review Committee (MRC) were erroneous, improper or  an
abuse of discretionary authority.  Apparently, the applicant  met  the
MRC due to  his  Air  Officer  Commanding  (AOC)  evaluation,  conduct
unbecoming an officer  candidate  and  an  accumulation  of  excessive
demerits.  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.  We therefore  believe  that  the  evidence  of
record supports his disenrollment for aptitude deficiency.  In view of
the foregoing and 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 16 November 2000, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:

                  Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Panel Chair
                  Ms. Melinda J. Loftin, Member
                  Ms. Barbara J. White-Olson, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 6 Jun 00, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ USAFA/JA, dated 8 Aug 00.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 1 Sep 00.
   Exhibit E.  Letter from applicant, dated 25 Sep 00, w/atchs.




                                   PEGGY E. GORDON
                                   Panel Chair