RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  00-02258

                 INDEX CODE:  128.10



                 COUNSEL:  NONE


                 HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be reinstated as a cadet in the United  States  Air  Force  Academy
(USAFA) and his records be corrected to reflect a period of  probation
for the time of his  absence;  or,  in  the  alternative,  appropriate
changes be made to his record to allow him to serve via the Air  Force
Reserve Officers Training Corps (AFROTC) or in the Air National  Guard
without any government indebtedness.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

At the time of his dismissal, he was an above-average, pilot-qualified
cadet second class, selected for USAFA training after his  outstanding
performance at a military  college,  on  scholarship,  with  no  prior
record of misconduct.  After an evening of drinking,  he  and  another
cadet stopped by the cadet mailroom and played a game common to cadets
at the time--spinning the dials on mailboxes and locking  those  which
opened.  One box opened and contained a  Playboy  magazine,  which  he
removed.  The misconduct was a thoughtless  act,  not  a  premeditated
crime--a product of an alcohol-induced  lowering  of  inhibitions  and
natural judgment.  He should not have done it.  He violated the  trust
of fellow cadets and the Air Force.   He  makes  no  excuses  for  his
actions, nor has he denied them at any  point.   It  was  an  isolated
incident,  an  aberration,  and  not  indicative  of  a  flaw  in  his
character.

He understands the difficulty  faced  by  the  Academy  leadership  in
deciding how to resolve the issues facing them given the numerous  and
varied cases involving the cadet mailroom.  In adopting  their  strong
public positions and harsh actions, they sent a message, the effect of
which fell too harshly on  him,  a  promising  leader  with  a  strong
potential for rehabilitation.

This ordeal has inadvertently made him a  better  leader.   His  grade
point average for his last semester  rose  from  2.49  to  2.87.   His
military performance average rose from 2.75 to 3.25 in a
competitive position for which he was  selected  over  numerous  other
applicants.  Because of his dedication to duty and excellence, he  was
endorsed for group-wide recognition  less  than  two  days  after  his
arrest.  He received two other awards from his squadron for excellence
and outstanding contribution to the  squadron.   His  records  contain
numerous letters from his  congressman,  senior  Air  Force  officers,
faculty members, his chain of command, and fellow cadets praising  his
integrity, character, and potential.

His conduct since leaving the Academy has been even more  outstanding.
He is on the Dean’s list at a nationally-renowned university,  with  a
3.60 cumulative grade point average.  He was  selected  for  a  highly
competitive internship for an Internet company.  He is about to  begin
his second season as head coach of a boys’ soccer team and  he  has  a
job throughout the year.

The incident in the mailroom and the ensuing difficulty  and  pressure
of the legal process during a rigorous academic semester were  a  rude
awakening of sorts, reminding him of the responsibility inherent  with
the privilege of  serving  his  country.   He  momentarily  took  this
privilege for granted, a mistake he has not and will not repeat.

He was a good soldier and a leader.  His desire to fly  and  serve  is
stronger than ever.  He cannot begin to express the remorse  he  feels
for the stupidity of his behavior and what it cost him.  He  makes  no
excuses for his actions, but he has learned his lesson.   The  Academy
taught him that good leaders are developed by allowing  them  to  make
mistakes and to learn from them.

His record was clean, his first offense, and it was nothing from which
he could not have recovered.  He asks the board to reexamine his  case
to see that he would indeed be an exceptional officer.

The applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 28 June 1996, the applicant was appointed a cadet in the USAFA.

On 13 May 1999, the applicant was served with a letter of notification
from the  Superintendent,  USAFA,  of  his  intent  to  recommend  his
disenrollment with an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge.
 His reasons were:  (a) Between, on or about 1 November 1998 and on or
about 20 January 1999, at the USAFA,  he  did,  on  divers  occasions,
steal certain mail matter from cadet mailboxes;  (b)  Between,  on  or
about 12 November 1998
and on or about 20 January 1999, at  the  USAFA,  he  did,  on  divers
occasions, wrongfully break open mailboxes in violation  of  Title  18
United States Code, Section 1705; (c) Between, on or about  1 November
1998 and on or about 20 January 1999, at the USAFA, he did, on  divers
occasions, attempt to steal mail matter from cadet mailboxes; and  (d)
Between, on or about 1 November 1998 and on or about 20 January  1999,
at the USAFA, he did, on divers occasions, conspire with another cadet
to steal mail matter from cadet mailboxes.

On 18 May 1999, the applicant submitted a waiver of  his  right  to  a
Board  of  Officers  and  asked  that  he  be  retained  or  honorably
discharged.  Based on  his  remorsefulness  and  the  fact  that  only
magazines were taken, the superintendent recommended to the  Secretary
of the Air Force Personnel Council that his character  of  service  be
general (under honorable conditions).  He also  recommended  that  the
applicant be ordered to reimburse educational costs.

On 9 July  1999,  the  Chief,  Cadet  Adverse  Actions,  notified  the
applicant  that  the  Superintendent  had  considered  the  facts  and
circumstances of his case and  determined  he  was  unqualified  as  a
candidate  for  graduation  and  commissioning   and   that   he   was
recommending to the Secretary of the  Air  Force  that  he  receive  a
general (under honorable conditions) discharge and that  he  reimburse
the government for the cost of his education.  On  19 July  1999,  the
applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification  and  indicated  he
did not waive any rights to appeal.

On 13 August 1999, the Chief, Cadet Adverse  Actions,  indicated  that
the applicant was administratively separated from appointment for  the
good of the service and  definitely  was  not  recommended  for  other
officer training.

On 13 August 1999, the  Director,  Air  Force  Review  Boards  Agency,
advised  that  the  Secretary  of   the   Air   Force   approved   the
recommendation  of  the  Superintendent,  USAFA,  to   disenroll   the
applicant and directed that he be discharged  with  a  general  (under
honorable conditions) discharge, and that he not be ordered to  active
duty, but instead reimburse the United States Government (USG) for the
cost of his USAFA education pursuant to Section 2005, Title 10, United
States Code.  The approval did not excuse any  other  indebtedness  to
the USG.  The applicant was subsequently disenrolled from  the  USAFA,
and separated, effective 27 September 1999, by reason of misconduct.

On 14 January 2000, the Director,  Air  Force  Review  Boards  Agency,
advised  that  the  Secretary  of  the  Air  Force   disapproved   the
applicant’s  request  to  waive  reimbursement  of  the  cost  of  his
education at the USAFA in the amount of $87,965.  He was  notified  of
the decision on 20 January 2000.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted
from the applicant’s records, are contained in the official  documents
at Exhibit A and in the letter prepared by the appropriate  office  of
the Air Force at Exhibit C.  Accordingly, there is no need  to  recite
these facts in this Record of Proceedings.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Staff Judge Advocate, HQ USAFA/JA, reviewed  the  application  and
stated that the applicant’s misconduct of  mail  theft  precludes  any
relief  from  his  disenrollment,  general  discharge,  and  resultant
indebtedness  to  the  Unites   States   Government.    The   complete
evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant stated that there are  several  issues,  which  are  not
clearly or correctly  represented  in  the  advisory  opinion.   Those
issues address the question of whether the misconduct was an  isolated
incident and the ambiguity of his  statement  to  the  OSI  after  his
arrest on 20 January 1999, concerning his intoxication.  His statement
that he took a Victoria’s Secret catalog from  a  mailbox  on  another
occasion  was  not  true.   Both  his   unintentional   omission   and
misstatement were a direct result of the extreme duress he felt during
questioning by  the  OSI  immediately  after  being  arrested  in  his
squadron area.  Understandably,  he  did  not  remember  some  of  the
details of the night in question.  Although there are  other  mistakes
concerning the dates on which certain events occurred,  the  point  of
his response is not to dispute the legal arguments  made  by  the  Air
Force, but to highlight the impropriety of the  result,  specifically,
that the punishment does not fit the offense.   While  every  sanction
imposed on him has been within legal limits, the discretion to achieve
an appropriate level of  fairness  has  been  missing  throughout  the
entire process.  His complete response is at Exhibit E-1.  There is  a
supporting statement from the applicant’s Congressman at Exhibit E-2.

_________________________________________________________________

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.   We  find  that  the
applicant’s disenrollment from the United  States  Air  Force  Academy
(USAFA) and the decision to recoup scholarship  monies  paid  were  in
accordance  with  the  applicable  regulations.    It   appears   that
responsible officials applied appropriate standards in  effecting  the
disenrollment, and we do not find persuasive evidence  that  pertinent
regulations were violated or that the applicant was not  afforded  all
of the rights to which he was entitled at the time  of  disenrollment.
Therefore, we are in agreement with the opinion and recommendation  of
the Air  Force  office  of  primary  responsibility  and  adopt  their
rationale as the basis for our conclusion that no  basis  exists  upon
which to favorably consider this application.

4.  The documentation provided with this case was sufficient  to  give
the Board a clear understanding of the issues involved and a  personal
appearance, with or without counsel, would not have  materially  added
to that understanding.  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 27 February 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:

                 Mr. David C. Van Gasbeck, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Michael V. Barbino, Member
                 Mr. Daniel F. Wenker, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 16 Aug 2000, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, HQ USAFA/JA, dated 28 Sep 2000, w/atchs.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 8 Dec 2000.

      Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 21 Dec 2000, and

      Letter, Congressman, dated 26 Jan 2001.




                                   DAVID C. VAN GASBECK
                                   Panel Chair