RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-03925
INDEX CODE: 104.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be reinstated as a cadet at the United States Air Force Academy (USAFA).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The USAFA did not follow the procedures clearly outlined in the Cadet Wing
Honor Code Reference Handbook. Not all information surrounding the honor
violation allegations was properly disclosed, and he was therefore,
precluded from properly responding to the allegations.
In support of his request, applicant provided a copy of documentation
associated with his elimination from training. His complete submission,
with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant entered the USAFA on 28 Jun 01. On 30 Jul 02, a Wing Honor
Board (WHB) convened to consider and make findings on allegations that he
violated Cadet Wing Honor Code by cheating when he submitted coursework on
an English 111 paper without properly documenting the help he received and
by lying when he implied, in an e-mail to his instructor, that he was
sending the same document he had attempted to send the previous day. The
WHB found no violation of cheating, but found he had violated the Honor
Code by lying. The Superintendent sent the case to the USAFA Board. The
USAFA Board convened on 13 Nov 02 and made recommendations to the
Superintendent. On 13 Nov 02, the Superintendent directed that he be
disenrolled for violating the Cadet Wing Honor Code. He was honorably
discharged from the USAFA on 14 Nov 02.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
USAFA/JA recommends denial. JA states that the Superintendent had the
authority to disenroll the applicant for the violation of the Cadet Wing
Honor Code. The Superintendent took the additional, non-mandatory step of
referring the case to the USAFA Board after the WHB made the
recommendations. Prior to referring the case, the Superintendent was aware
of and was advised of the merits of the applicant's concerns regarding the
WHB. The Superintendent was within his discretion in ordering the
disenrollment and discharge. The applicant presents nothing new relative
to the case.
The JA evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 31 Jan
03 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, this office has
received no response.
_________________________________________________________________
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 error or injustice that would warrant reinstatement into the
USAFA. The applicant was disenrolled from the Academy for having violated
the cadet wing honor code. After reviewing the circumstances surrounding
the applicant’s dismissal from the Academy and the documentation submitted
in support of his appeal, we find no error or injustice concerning the
disenrollment action. It appears that responsible officials applied the
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. Accordingly, we agree with the opinion and
recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt
their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that he has not been the
victim of an error or injustice. In the absence of evidence to the
contrary, we find no basis upon which 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 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2002-
03925 in Executive Session on 3 Jun 03, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Wayne R. Gracie, Panel Chair
Mr. George Franklin, Member
Mrs. Carolyn J. Watkins-Taylor, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 6 Dec 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, USAFA/JA, dated 14 Jan 03.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 31 Jan 03.
WAYNE R. GRACIE
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01674
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-01674 INDEX CODE: 104.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 4 Dec 07 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The DD Form 785, Record of Disenrollment From Officer Candidate-Type Training, dated 29 Jun 05, be amended by changing the words in Section III to reflect “Cadet P voluntarily resigned while...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00215
The record of the WHB forwarded for review includes not only the verbatim transcript, but copies of the various homework assignments allegedly copied, but does not include evidence introduced by the applicant. In support of his request, applicant provided his counsel's brief and his disenrollment case file. Cadets and witnesses are not sworn in at WHB's because of the administrative nature of the proceedings.
On 29 Sep 98, the Secretary of the Air Force approved the recommendation of the United States Air Force Academy Superintendent to disenroll applicant and directed that he be honorably separated from cadet status, transferred to the Air Force Reserve and ordered to active duty for a period of three years. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Staff Judge Advocate, HQ USAFA/JA, stated that the applicant was disenrolled from the Air Force...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02250
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-02250 INDEX NUMBER: 104.00 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: Dartt J. Demaree HEARING DESIRED: Yes MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 24 Feb 08 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The finding that he violated the United States Air Force Academy (USAFA) (Academy) Cadet Honor Code be voided. Counsel states that the statement that no new evidence...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02075
After lunch when he logged-on to Falcon Quest he realized the test had timed out and had given him a score of zero. On 24 May 04, a Wing Honor Board (WHB) was convened to determine if the applicant had cheated by taking the Class of 2007 Certification Test twice, without proper authorization, and using information received from the first test and discussions with his roommate to gain an unfair advantage on the second test. ...
His disenrollment was primarily caused by his conviction for an honor violation by the Wing Honor Board (WHB) although his WHB conviction had been set aside due to irregularities and should not have been considered as a factor in his disenrollment. The Superintendent, after reviewing the recommendations from the MRC, Commandant of Cadets and the Academy Board, also recommended applicant’s disenrollment. We note that one of the applicant’s commanding officers clearly indicates in his...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03934
The alleged discrepancies are: a) he was improperly advised on his right to counsel, b) the violation the applicant was found guilty of was different than the original honor violation cited in the letter of notification, c) the violation was mischaracterized by the Cadet Sanctions Recommendation Panel (CSRP) making it appear more egregious to the USAFA chain of command, d) the CSRP failed to fully address the "forthrightness" factor, saying it was not significant, e) the CSRP failed to...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02351
On 4 Mar 05, the Commandant of Cadets recommended disenrollment. He entered active duty on 13 Sep 05 and is currently serving in the grade of airman first class. It was determined his honor violation was particularly egregious because he cheated on an eye exam in order to become a pilot and was therefore disenrolled.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02807
After review of the case, the Academy Superintendent (SUPT) forwarded the applicant’s case to the Academy Board. The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit F. In a 15-page letter, with attachments, the applicant’s parents provided further response to the Air Force evaluation and comments on the applicant’s case. Based on further questions posed to the Academy IG, she was advised that from the time her son received 40 demerits (Apr 02) through the period of the IG...
The applicant committed a violation of the Honor Code that was deserving of disenrollment, and none of his arguments can change that fact. The evidence of record reflects that the applicant was disenrolled from the Air Force Academy for an honor code violation. We further note that the Air Force Psrsonnel Board, concerned about the appearance of inconsistent treatment 3 AFBCMR 97-03098 - regarding the applicant‘s case and a similar case of another cadet, returned the applicant’s case to...