RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  00-02975
            INDEX CODE:  100.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1. The DD Form 785, Record of Disenrollment from Officer  Candidate  -
Type Training, be removed from his records.

2.  He be enrolled in Officer Training School (OTS) or another Reserve
Officer Training Corps (ROTC) program.

3.  If his reenrollment is denied, the debt  that  he  was  forced  to
accept be reconsidered.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

    a.  He answered all questions honestly and  completely,  but  that
many statements made against him  were  erroneous,  contradictory,  or
included in his file without his knowledge.

    b.  He was denied his  right  to  have  a  college  or  university
official review the disenrollment report of  investigation  before  it
was submitted to HQ AFROTC.

    c.  There were major errors made in disenrollment action.

    d.  His financial status would have been better had he not  joined
AFROTC at the University of Dayton.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits  two  personal  statements
and a statement from the former Air Base Wing Commander.

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted with AFROTC on 5 September 1995.

AFROTC Det 643/CC initiated disenrollment action against the applicant
after several incidents, between 10 and 13 April 1997,  in  which  the
applicant permitted two male  adults  to  engage  in  unlawful  sexual
contact with  two  minor  females,  and  engaged  in  similar  conduct
himself.

Applicant was disenrolled from AFROTC effective 3  November  1997,  in
accordance with AFI 36-2011, paragraph  6.1.5  and  AFROTCI     36-11,
paragraph 6.8.3 (failure to maintain military  retention  standards  -
FTMMRS).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Deputy Staff Judge Advocate, AFOATS/JA, reviewed  the  application
and states the following:

    a.  In reference to the applicant’s first allegation, he  was  not
disenrolled  for  failure  to  answer  any  questions  honestly.   His
disenrollment was based on his conduct, and the lack  of  maturity  he
demonstrated.  Furthermore, he provided no evidence,  other  than  his
own assertion, that any statements made against him were erroneous  or
contradictory.

    b.  In reference to the applicant’s second allegation, per AFROTCI
36-11, paragraph 6.11.1.8, cadets being investigated for disenrollment
could request the IO to ask a college or university official to review
the ROI.  The applicant waived this right in writing.

    c.  In reference to the applicant’s third allegation, he does  not
specify any particular error that was made.

    d.  In reference to the  applicant’s  fourth  allegation,  if  his
allegation concerns his entire enrollment at the University of Dayton,
then he is arguably correct that he would have been financially better
off had  he  not  joined  AFROTC  because  recoupment  of  scholarship
benefits has been directed.  On 1 July 1997, he was counseled that  he
was being investigated for disenrollment, which meant that his  AFROTC
continuation  was  in  jeopardy,  resulting  in  automatic   temporary
inactivation of his scholarship.  However, if he is referring  to  the
Fall 97 semester specifically, on 17 December 1997,  he  was  notified
that the nonpayment of the Fall 97 scholarship funds was in accordance
with applicable guidance, and reminded of the 1 July  1997  counseling
form he had signed.  There was no error or injustice.  Therefore, they
recommend that no change be made to applicant’s military records.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed  the  Air  Force  evaluation  and  states  that  he
understands that he and he alone is responsible for his actions in May
1997.  He realizes that he failed in some ways.  He also realizes that
his conduct was a significant departure from what’s expected of an Air
Force member, but hopes the Board  will  agree  that  it  was  out  of
character for him and that he has matured to the point that  repeating
anything like it would be unthinkable today.  He offers his  sincerest
apologies and asks that the Board look to his actions  since  then  as
proof he has grown.  His goal is simple, to  serve  as  an  Air  Force
officer.

Applicant'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
evidence of record, we are not persuaded that the applicant’s  records
are in error or that he has been the  victim  of  an  injustice.   His
contentions are noted; however, in our opinion, the detailed  comments
provided by the appropriate Air Force office  adequately  address  his
allegations.  Therefore, we agree with the opinion and  recommendation
of the Air Force and adopt  their  rationale  as  the  basis  for  the
conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an  error  or
injustice.  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 4 April 2001, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                       Mr. Henry Romo, Jr., Panel Chair
                       Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Member
                       Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 2 Nov 00, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFOATS/JA, dated 25 Jan 01, w/atchs.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 9 Feb 01.
      Exhibit E. Applicant’s Response, dated 8 Mar 01, w/atchs.




                             HENRY ROMO, JR.
                             Panel Chair