RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-03091

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The USAFA did not follow proper written procedures and  did  not  act  in  a
moral or professional manner.

The applicant states the Air Force has attempted to cover-up the situation.

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

The applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 18 June 1996, the applicant was appointed a cadet in the USAFA.

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  Vandenburg  Hall  after  Dormitory
Inspection (approximately 0010 hours), and proceeded off-base  to  go  to  a
Denny’s restaurant.  The cadets returned at 0214 hours  to  the  gate,  upon
which their identification cards were checked and names  were  taken  by  an
Air Officer Commanding and the security police attending the gate.

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



On 19 May  1997,  the  applicant  acknowledged  receipt  of  the  letter  of
notification and indicated that 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
that 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  prior
to his case being 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 2.00 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 USAFA and if the  cadet  should  be
recommended for disenrollment.  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  USAFA  he
failed his Chinese class.  As  a  result,   the  semester  was  a  deficient
semester and the applicant was placed on academic probation and retained  at
the USAFA.  In his second semester, the applicant began doing well,  and  at
mid-term was removed from 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  USAFA  and  to  Congressman  regarding   the
applicant’s case.  Based on  these  letters,  the  USAFA  Inspector  General
conducted  several  reviews  of  the  applicant’s  ARC  proceeding  and  his
disenrollment.   During  these  reviews,  the  members  of  the   ARC   were
contacted, and  all  indicated  the  proceedings  were  fair  and  conducted
properly,  but  that  applicant  had  put  very  little  effort   into   his
preparation for 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  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 denied harassing the applicant at any  time.   The  AOC
did  notice  that  applicant’s  attitude  at   the   USAFA   was   declining
considerably, and talked to him about the option of resignation  if  he  did
not truly want to be at the USAFA.  Even after several counseling  sessions,
the applicant’s attitude continued to decline.

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

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


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the USAFA/JA evaluation was forwarded  to  the  applicant
on 25 January 1999, for review and  response  within  30  days.   By  letter
dated 29 January 1999, the applicant’s father submitted  statements  in  his
son’s behalf in  response  to  the  USAFA/JA  evaluation.   The  applicant’s
father states that at no time has  he  ever  charged  the  USAFA  failed  to
follow Air Force regulations.  However, he does think the review was  flawed
and  unethical.   He  thinks  the  real  truth  comes  from  Lt  Col   F---,
Congressional Liaison Office.  In November 1997, Lt Col F--- writes  of  all
the problems that his son had or allegedly had.  He [father] wrote over  and
over to the USAFA with documentation,  their  documentation,  disputing  the
dismissal.  On 11 September  1998,  Congressman  Linder  received  a  letter
telling what the applicant must do to be readmitted.  If the things the  AOC
presented at the ARC were true, the USAFA  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  mistake   was
committed.  She wrote in June 1998 and explained what his son must do to  be
readmitted.  They contacted the USAFA and were told that  it  was  too  late
for his son to be readmitted.  Over a year ago, he wrote  and  stated  there
had to be someone in authority at the USAFA with the integrity  to  right  a
moral wrong.  He now admits that this is an unreal request.   Two  or  three
star general officers have signed their name to this disenrollment.   It  is
true they were only 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.

The applicant’s father’s complete response, with attachments, 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 probable error or injustice.  After  thoroughly  reviewing  the
evidence of record and  noting  the  applicant’s  contentions,  we  are  not
persuaded that he should be returned to the  USAFA.   In  this  respect,  we
note that prior to his disenrollment  from  the  USAFA,  the  applicant  was
provided an opportunity to present a recovery plan to the  ARC  to  convince
them that he was capable and willing  to  be  successful  in  all  areas  of
development at the USAFA.  Despite being advised of the  importance  of  his
presentation to the ARC,  the  applicant  presented  a  recovery  plan  that
contained only three very  short  vague  sentences.   During  his  extensive
interview,  when  questioned  by  the  ARC  regarding  the  brevity  of  his
submission, the applicant responded that he was better at  communicating  in
person.  However, when asked by the ARC, in person, what his  recovery  plan
involved, the applicant merely  responded  that  a  detailed  plan  was  not
necessary.  While the applicant contends the USAFA  did  not  follow  proper
written procedures, we find no  evidence  that  pertinent  regulations  were
violated or that he was not afforded all the rights  to  which  entitled  at
the time of  his  disenrollment.   To  the  contrary,  the  USAFA  Inspector
General has conducted several reviews of  the  applicant’s  ARC  proceedings
and found that he was  afforded  all  of  the  applicable  rights  to  which
entitled.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the  contrary,  we  find
no compelling  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 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 21 September 2000, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                  Mr. Gregory H. Petkoff, Panel Chair
                  Mr. William E. Edwards, Member
                  Mr. John E. Pettit, 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, SAF/MIBR, dated 25 Jan 99.
      Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant’s Father, dated 29 Jan 99,
                  w/atchs.




             GREGORY H. PETKOFF
                                  Panel Chair