RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-02807
            INDEX NUMBER:  104.00
            COUNSEL:  Charles R. Lucy

            HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be reinstated as a cadet at the United  States  Air  Force  Academy
(hereafter referred to as Academy).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His disenrollment was disproportionate  and  inconsistent  with  other
cases based on a tainted process  that  failed  to  give  him  a  fair
determination.

In a 45-page submission, with attachments, applicant lays out his case
for reinstatement to the Academy.  He  provides  an  overview  of  his
qualifications and accomplishments at the Academy.   For  example,  he
was an above average student with a cumulative grade point average  of
3.25 and participated on the Division 1 varsity  lacrosse  team.   The
applicant addresses issues in the following four areas in  support  of
his appeal:

        a.  Equity of  Punishment.   In  this  area,  the  applicant’s
primary contention is  that  he  was  assessed  an  unfair  number  of
demerits for losing his ID Card, which  caused  his  total  points  to
reach a level in a 6-month period that required  his  placement  in  a
probation status.  The applicant states that he was assessed  a  total
of 40 points for an offense that normally results in a total of 15  to
20  points.   Additionally,  the  40  points  he  was  assessed  were,
allegedly, based on a new policy after 9-11,  a  policy  that  is  not
documented anywhere.  The applicant indicates if he had been given the
normal amount of demerits for losing his ID card, he would  have  been
referred to a Squadron Commander Review Board to determine whether  he
would be placed on probation.  He also alleges that another member  of
his class was assessed the lower  number  of  demerits  for  the  same
offense of losing her ID card.  According to  the  applicant,  several
investigations were conducted into his case.  The IG reported  in  his
investigation  that   there   were   inconsistencies   regarding   the
disbursement of demerits ranging from 0-40 and that some AOCs were not
aware of the policy regarding 40 demerits for an ID card loss.  The IG
Report proved that there was an inequity of punishment  concerning  ID
card loss.

The other issue the applicant states he questioned regarding equity of
punishment was the decision to disenroll him.  He states  he  was  not
given any reason for disenrollment when the  Superintendent  made  his
first  decision.   He  contends  that  the  IG  requested   that   the
Superintendent revisit his case after the investigation and asked  for
his reinstatement based on their findings.  The  case  was  revisited,
but he was not reinstated.  His  parents  also  raised  the  issue  of
equity of punishment by asking  the  Superintendent  to  review  three
known cases where cadets were retained with more severe  circumstances
than his.  He contends that the Superintendent failed to  account  for
the disparity after he had shown  that  the  cases  were  related  and
similar to his.

         b.  Command  Influence.   The  applicant  contends  that  the
Training Group Commander made an improper  statement  that  influenced
his chain of command throughout the entire probation and disenrollment
review  process.   His   parents   addressed   this   issue   to   the
Superintendent  and  there  were  two  Congressional   requests   made
regarding their inquiry.  They were told that everyone in the chain of
command leading up to the Superintendent only makes a  recommendation.
The Superintendent makes the final decision and he had no knowledge of
the Training Group Commander’s remarks.  The applicant  believes  that
it is possible that if the comment had not been  made,  his  chain  of
command may have acted differently, not voted to  disenroll  him,  and
the process would have never reached the Superintendent level.

         c.  Due  Process.   The  applicant  contends  that   numerous
instances of inaccurate and incomplete information, false  statements,
nonstandard practices, violations of UCMJ Article 31 rights  and  bias
led to a total denial of due process in the  administration  of  cadet
wing regulations and procedures regarding his disenrollment.  He cites
his 29 Oct 02 Softlook Military Review Committee (MRC)  proceeding  as
the strongest evidence of the violation of his due process rights.  He
discusses how the probation journal that he wrote and had approved  by
his Squadron AOC was taken out of context at his Softlook MRC and in a
memo for record prepared by his Deputy Group AOC.  Regarding  the  MFR
written by his Deputy Group AOC, the applicant indicates that  he  was
not given an opportunity to review it  before  it  showed  up  in  the
package given to the Academy Superintendent to  review.   He  believes
this  violated  the  applicable  Academy   Cadet   Wing   Instruction.
Additionally, he contends that his Article  31  rights  were  violated
since he was not advised that he could get  in  trouble  for  what  he
wrote in his journal.  The applicant provides in-depth  discussion  on
the process leading to his disenrollment with references to  incidents
and actions that he believes violated his due process.

        d.  Adversarial Reporting.  The applicant contends that false,
inaccurate, and misleading information was  prevalent  throughout  his
probation and disenrollment process with no other  purpose  except  to
document and support a disenrollment case against him.   Although  the
first IG report substantiated many of his claims, a second report  was
adversarial in its approach to many of the same situations covered  in
the first report.  The applicant discusses specific  issues  addressed
in the second report and the discrepancies  he  believes  support  his
claim.

The applicant submitted a 23-page addendum, dated 28 Sep  03,  to  his
initial package along with a document called “Wing Tips 2003,” dated 4
Jun 03.  The applicant states that the “Wing Tips” document reflects a
huge  disconnect  between  what  the  Academy  teaches  and  what   it
practices.  In  his  submission,  the  applicant  references  specific
issues covered in the “Wing Tips” document  and  how  they  relate  to
actions taken in his case.  He also discusses  issues  such  as  notes
made by the recorder in  his  MRC.   These  notes  led  to  inaccurate
information being included in the executive summary  of  his  MRC  and
incorrectly being attributed to him.

Information on Academy leadership contained in a report prepared by  a
panel to investigate allegations of sexual misconduct at the  Academy,
while not directly applicable to him, pertains to the  treatment  that
he received.

The applicant submitted additional information in a letter,  dated  28
Oct 03, pertaining to his efforts to obtain  information  through  the
Freedom of Information Act.  He includes these to make the Board aware
of the requests, the responses he  has  received,  and  the  reasoning
behind his appeal of the responses.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is  at  Exhibit
A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

While serving his junior  year  at  the  Academy,  the  applicant  was
recommended for disenrollment by a  Military  Review  Committee  (MRC)
after receiving  a  current  deficient  Military  Performance  Average
(MPA), receiving excessive demerits, and failing conduct and  aptitude
probation.  At the time of his MRC, his record reflected that he had a
career total of 291 demerits.  He had been placed on  probation  on  5
Aug 02 after accumulating 86 demerits in a six-month period.  While on
probation, he received  an  additional  125  demerits  (25  for  being
outside cadet limits and 100 for underage drinking at an Academy  home
football game).  The applicant provided matters in his  behalf.  After
review of the case, the Academy Superintendent  (SUPT)  forwarded  the
applicant’s case to the Academy Board.

On 14 Mar 03, the Academy Superintendent (SUPT) considered  the  facts
and  circumstances  presented  to  the  Academy  Board  regarding  the
recommendation for disenrollment of the applicant and  placed  him  on
involuntary excess leave pending the decision of the SECAF.   Sometime
after the Academy Board the SUPT was made aware of  comments  made  by
the applicant’s Training Group Commander, which the applicant believed
to have influenced the outcome of his case.  The SUPT stated  that  he
would not have altered his decision to disenroll the applicant on that
point alone.

The applicant appealed the  decision  of  disenrollment  and  filed  a
formal IG complaint alleging mishandling of his case.  As a result  of
their findings, the IG recommended  that  the  Academy  Superintendent
review the applicant’s case one more time to consider reversal  before
sending the case to the SECAF (Exhibit B).

On 3 Jun 03, the Academy  SUPT  recommended  to  the  SECAF  that  the
applicant be separated from cadet status  and  transferred  to  active
duty for two years.  The applicant disagreed with  the  recommendation
and submitted additional matters for consideration by the SECAF.

On 19 Jun 03, the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC)
reviewed the applicant’s case and recommended that  the  applicant  be
disenrolled and ordered to active duty in an  enlisted  status  for  a
period  of  two  years.   On  25  Jun  03,  the  SECAF  approved   the
recommendation of the Academy SUPT  to  disenroll  the  applicant  and
directed that he be separated from cadet status,  transferred  to  the
Air Force Reserves in an enlisted status, and ordered to  active  duty
for a period of two years.

The applicant is presently serving on active  duty  in  the  grade  of
airman first class as a Computer Systems Implementation Apprentice.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

USAFA/JA recommends denial of the applicant’s requests.  They  provide
a  response  to  each  of  the  four  areas  that  the  applicant  has
emphasized.

        a.  Equity of Punishment.  AFCWI 51-201 is a  tool  to  assist
commanders in administering discipline and while it was implemented to
promote consistency, demerits  can  be  issued  “within  range”  of  a
particular offense and is ultimately at  the  commander’s  discretion.
At the time the  applicant  lost  his  ID  card,  the  Training  Group
Commander had  established  a  policy  of  assessing  a  mandatory  40
demerits for this offense.  They provide their rationale as to why the
applicant’s contention that his ID card was misplaced rather than lost
is without merit.  They also state  the  applicant’s  contention  that
another cadet received a lesser punishment for  the  same  offense  is
without merit since a change of command, and  change  of  policy,  had
occurred by the time this cadet lost his ID card.

        b.  Command Influence.  There is sufficient  evidence  in  the
record to support disenrollment and there is no credible evidence that
anyone was  influenced  by  statements  made  by  the  Training  Group
Commander.  The ultimate decision regarding his disenrollment was made
at a level above the Training Group Commander and was not  subject  to
his direction.  The Academy IG also substantiated there was  no  undue
command influence.

        c.  Due Process.  Regarding the applicant’s assertion that his
MRC package contained so many errors that officials must have acted in
bad faith, all of the information he references was considered by  the
MRC.  His Squadron AOC prepared a memo for record (MFR), dated 28  Oct
02, noting errors in  the  police  report  prepared  on  his  underage
drinking.  Additionally, the MFR the applicant was ordered to  prepare
on his alcohol-related incident was not used against him in  any  UCMJ
action, since he was disciplined pursuant to  the  cadet  disciplinary
system.  Failure to advise the applicant of his Article 31 rights does
not render his statement inadmissible at the MRC.  A lack of right  to
representation by defense counsel is not a lack of  due  process,  per
se, as contended by the applicant.  The applicant received  notice  of
the proceedings, was provided copies of the documents to be considered
by members of the MRC, was given an opportunity to  respond,  and  was
afforded an opportunity to provide  additional  matters  to  both  the
Superintendent and Secretary of the Air Force.

        d.  Adversarial Reporting.  The applicant’s  MRC  package  did
contain errors as he alleges.  However, while regrettable,  they  were
merely mistakes and not an effort to ensure his disenrollment.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In  responding  to  the  Air  Force  evaluation,  applicant   is   now
represented by counsel.  Counsel provides a 7-page response with an 18-
page  memorandum  prepared  by  the  applicant,  with  six  supporting
attachments.

In his response, counsel amplifies  on  several  key  points  that  he
believes  demonstrates  the  existence  of   material   error   and/or
injustice.  He provides  a  summary  of  the  applicant’s  background,
qualifications, and accomplishments, which  reflects  the  applicant’s
officership potential.

Regarding USAFA/JA’s position that there is no credible evidence  that
anyone was influenced by the statements made  by  the  Training  Group
Commander, counsel  asserts  that  the  Academy  IG  contradicts  this
conclusion.  He references  an  Apr  03  IG  report  prepared  on  the
applicant’s disenrollment.  The report found that a  preponderance  of
evidence by the cadet chain of command substantiated that the Training
Group Commander did express unfavorable comments about  the  applicant
to the cadet chain of command.  He  references  an  excerpt  from  the
report that  states  the  cadets  believed  that  the  statement  made
contributed to the tone for the  rest  of  the  disenrollment  process
concerning the applicant.  Counsel opines that while the  cadets  were
brave enough to admit that they were influenced, the officer chain  of
command was not.  Counsel further discusses USAFA/JA’s assertion  that
since the Training Group Commander was  subordinate  to  the  Training
Wing Vice Commander, the Superintendent, and SECAF his comments  could
not have influenced them.  He provides three reasons  why  this  is  a
misleading argument.  Counsel references the  case  of  another  cadet
that the Board granted relief based on the hierchical structure at the
Academy being improperly influenced in its decision-making process.

Counsel states that the USAFA/JA response  misstates  the  applicant’s
case.  As his first example of this, he discusses USAFA/JA’s assertion
that the applicant’s BCMR application is just a  rehash  of  arguments
and issues previously presented to the Academy Board.   He  references
an attached memorandum prepared by the applicant as proof that this is
not true.  Secondly, counsel  rebuts  USAFA/JA’s  statement  that  the
Training  Group  Commander  had  established  a  policy  assessing  40
demerits for a lost ID card when in reality the Academy IG  determined
that no such policy existed.  Third, counsel discusses  the  issue  of
command influence and concludes that the Academy has failed  to  rebut
the presumption that command influence took place in  the  applicant’s
case.  Fourth, counsel discusses what he characterizes as perhaps  the
most egregious violation of the applicant’s  due  process  right,  his
AOC’s failure to follow Article 31.  He points out that  AFCWI  51-201
requires an Article 31  warning  when  a  cadet  is  implicated  in  a
suspected violation of the UCMJ and is not optional as USAFA/JA  seems
to indicate with their view that  the  violation  of  the  applicant’s
Article 31 rights was okay because the information he provided was not
used in any UCMJ action.  Finally counsel discusses what  he  believes
are efforts by Academy officials to distance themselves  from  certain
recommendations made by the Academy IG.

In his attached memorandum, applicant states that he addresses  issues
that the Board can find in his initial appeal, but were overlooked  by
USAFA/JA in their evaluation and needed to be  brought  forth  in  the
interest of clarity and balance.

The applicant provides his response point by point  to  correspond  to
the numbered paragraphs in the evaluation prepared  by  USAFA/JA.   He
provides in-depth discussions of the Procedural History  as  presented
by USAFA/JA.  He comments on what he asserts are specific inaccuracies
made by USAFA/JA.  In  his  response  to  USAFA/JA’s  summary  of  his
position regarding his case, applicant opines that USAFA/JA’s  attempt
to summarize his position by condensing a 46-page  letter,  with  many
supporting documents, into four very short paragraphs  that  encompass
less than one page of information is  totally  inadequate.   Applicant
addresses USAFA/JA’s response to his position as they have interpreted
it.  He asserts that USAFA/JA  failed  to  respond  to  the  issue  of
disproportionate punishment and  inconsistencies  among  other  cases.
The applicant lists other Academy cases with “greater” infractions but
less punishment when compared to his.  The applicant  discusses  AFCWI
51-201 and how it was not followed in his case,  referencing  specific
excerpts, provides in-depth discussion on how command influence played
a role in his case, and discusses the  issue  of  errors  in  his  MRC
package.  The applicant lists several issues that he asserts  USAFA/JA
failed to consider in addressing the issue of “lack of  due  process.”
Finally,  the  applicant  addresses  the  Academy’s  response  to  the
allegation of inaccurate reporting.  He provides what he  believes  is
clear evidence of the adversarial reporting.

Counsel’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL REVIEWS OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant  provided  an  additional  response  to  the  Air  Force
evaluation.   He  discusses  the  difficulty  he  has  encountered  in
obtaining information and evidence  relevant  to  his  case  from  the
Academy.

The applicant questions how USAFA/JA obtained some of the  information
contained in their evaluation since the Academy IG  advised  him  that
they had no correspondence with USAFA/JA.  He especially questions the
statement  in  USAFA/JA’s  evaluation   “Finally,   the   Academy   IG
investigation determined there was no unlawful command influence.”  He
states that he has been  trying  to  get  information  regarding  this
statement since 1 Dec 03.

The applicant  attaches  copies  of  correspondence  relative  to  his
efforts to get information on his case.

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.

The applicant’s parents address the  answers  the  applicant  received
from the Academy IG in response to questions posed by their son.  They
opine that the response is so evasive that it appears that the Academy
is trying to hide something.  They question the Academy IG’s  response
to the applicant regarding what investigation USAFA/JA  referenced  in
making the statement that the Academy  IG’s  investigation  determined
there was no command influence.  The Academy IG answered that USAFA/JA
issued a legal opinion for the government based on  their  review  and
understanding of the facts surrounding the Academy IG’s  investigation
and other documents in the package.  Applicant’s  parents  opine  that
this amounts to  USAFA/JA  forming  an  opinion  based  on  their  own
interpretation, not the IG’s.  Applicant’s parents list and expound on
12 considered false claims made by USAFA/JA as pointed  out  by  their
son in his response to the Board.

Applicant’s parents further discuss the Academy IG’s response to their
son  regarding  the  issue  of  command  influence  and   give   their
perspective on what the response, or perceived lack of response means.
 They point out that USAFA/JA is the only  one  stating  that  command
influence did not exist.  They state that an  impartial  investigation
should have been used to determine if command influence existed.  They
opine that an investigation was started, but when  indicators  pointed
to command influence,  the  Academy  backed  off  and  answers  became
clouded.

Applicant’s parents present 13 areas  of  discussion  to  prove  their
belief that the AOC, Group AOC, and Deputy Group AOC worked  to  carry
out the stated intentions of the Training Group Commander.  They opine
that the AOC, Group AOC, and Deputy Group AOC made far too many errors
in their son’s case to be considered accidental administrative errors.
 They reference comments made about the Training Group Commander in  a
report prepared by the panel reviewing sexual  misconduct  allegations
at the Academy.  The type of officer the Training Group Commander  was
portrayed as makes clear why the Academy officers would make sure  her
intentions were carried out.

The applicant’s parents discuss the issue of the 40 demerits  received
by  their  son  for  losing  his  ID  card.   They  believe  that  the
explanation given for the 40 demerits makes no sense.   They  conclude
that based on the Academy  IG’s  response  regarding  this  issue,  it
should have been determined that their son should have never  received
40 demerits or it should be  concluded  that  the  15  demerits  given
another cadet for the same offense was inequitable.  If their son  had
only  been  assessed  15  demerits,  his  situation  could  have  been
dramatically different.

The complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit G.

Applicant’s mother  provided  another  input  regarding  the  ID  card
policy.  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 investigation (Mar 03), there was  not  a
change in the ID card policy, which means that the cadet that received
15 demerits should have also received 40.  She opines that this  issue
raises another area of untruthfulness by her son’s AOC.

Applicant’s mother provides six questions  regarding  truthfulness  by
the AOC that need to be addressed.  She states  that  the  Academy  IG
advised her that the current Academy  administration  was  looking  at
policy based on some of her son’s claims.  She questions how this will
help her son.  She opines that if the Academy feels that the  policies
and procedures used at the Academy  were  not  fair  and  need  to  be
changed, they should be addressed within her son’s case.

The complete submission is at Exhibit H.

In a 7-page  letter,  with  8  attachments,  the  applicant  submitted
additional information for the Board to consider.  He  indicates  that
as a result of additional information obtained  from  the  Academy  IG
through  the  FOIA  process,  he  can  assuredly  say  that   the   IG
investigation did not determine that there was no command influence in
his case as indicated  in  the  USAFA/JA  evaluation.   The  applicant
provides a summary of his efforts to obtain information from  USAFA/JA
through the FOIA process and his determination that they did not  have
sufficient information to determine that there  had  been  no  command
influence in his case.  The applicant  also  details  his  efforts  to
obtain information from the Academy IG through the  FOIA  process  and
his determination that there  is  no  information  to  show  that  the
Academy IG determined that there was no command influence in his case.

The applicant discusses a document obtained through the FOIA  provided
by  the  Academy  to  a  Congressional  Inquiry  that   he   considers
significant because it proves that the Deputy Group AOC did  not  tell
the truth about his reasons for  addressing  the  applicant’s  journal
entries at the Softlook MRC.  The applicant provides the  sequence  of
events and the rationale  that  leads  him  to  this  conclusion.   He
references specific attachments  that  he  would  like  the  Board  to
review, which he believes proves command influence.

The applicant indicates that he is still trying to  obtain  additional
information and if successful will forward it to the Board.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is  at  Exhibit
I.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE INFORMATION:

The applicant was notified that his case was being temporarily  closed
until such  time  as  he  notified  the  Board  in  writing  that  his
application was complete and he was ready to proceed.

The letter of notification is at Exhibit J.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE INFORMATION:

The applicant responded that his application is complete and he  would
like to proceed.  Although he has been attempting to obtain additional
information, the Air Force has failed to follow their own  regulations
regarding his requests, making it impossible for him to  know  if  and
when he will receive a response to his requests.  Therefore, he  would
like to proceed.  Regarding the issue of whether the Board  should  be
corresponding with his attorney, he indicates that he will be the  one
corresponding with the Board, with his attorney’s advice.

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit K.

_________________________________________________________________


THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

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

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate  the
existence of error or injustice.  After reviewing the complete evidence
of record, we find that while there may have been  a  sufficient  basis
for the applicant’s disenrollment, the findings noted in the  USAFA  IG
investigation call into question many of the  actions  taken  regarding
the applicant’s disenrollment.  We are mindful of  the  fact  that  the
Academy Superintendent and the Secretary of  the  Air  Force  Personnel
Council (SAFPC) reviewed the IG’s findings before the final decision to
disenroll the applicant was made.  However, we are concerned  that  the
applicant’s attitude, and subsequent chain  of  events  may  have  been
influenced by what appears to be an unfair assessment of  demerits  for
the loss of his ID card.  We note that the IG  could  not  substantiate
the existence of a formal policy requiring such a large  assessment  of
demerits.  Additionally, it appears that punishment for this particular
offense was not meted out with any  degree  of  consistency  among  the
cadets.  Further, we are left with a perception of impropriety  on  the
part of key officials in the applicant’s leadership chain.  As a  cadet
at the USAFA, the applicant was  expected  to  adhere  to  the  highest
standards of conduct and demonstrated aptitude for eventual service  as
a military officer.  A  cogent  argument  can  be  made  that  in  many
respects he failed to do so.   However,  if  a  cadet  is  expected  to
maintain  high  standards  as  part  of  an  education   and   training
environment, we should expect no less from  those  entrusted  with  the
responsibility to mentor, mold, educate, train and guide them.  In this
case, there are too  many  instances  of  errant  or  poorly  justified
actions in the overall disenrollment process, giving the appearance  of
injustice.  We believe there is sufficient basis to give the  applicant
the benefit of the doubt regarding the propriety of  his  disenrollment
and to provide him an opportunity  to  complete  his  training  at  the
USAFA.   Therefore,  we  recommend  that  the  applicant’s  records  be
corrected as indicated below.

_______________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of  the  Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that:

        a.  He was not disenrolled from the  United  States  Air  Force
Academy (USAFA) on 3 June 2003, but  was  placed  in  an  excess  leave
status until his involuntary recall to extended active duty on 25  June
2003.

        b.  Any and all documentation  relating  to  the  loss  of  his
identification card, his conduct probation and disenrollment  from  the
USAFA be declared void and removed  from  his  records.   Documentation
related to  the  remaining  underlying  disciplinary  infractions  will
remain  in  his  cadet  records  in  accordance  with   the   governing
instructions.

        c.  Effective 13 July 2004,  he  was  honorably  released  from
active duty, and re-enrolled in the USAFA as a cadet on 14 July 2004.

_______________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered  Docket  Number  BC-2003-
02807 in Executive Session on 20 April 2004, under  the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
      Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Member
      Mr. Grover L. Dunn, Member

All  members  voted  to  correct  the  records,  as  recommended.   The
following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 Jul 03, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Memorandum, HQ USAFA/JA, dated 6 Nov 03.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Nov 03.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, Counsel, dated 17 Dec 03, w/atchs.
     Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 23 Jan 04, w/atchs.
     Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant’s Parents, dated 3 Feb 04,
                 w/atchs.
     Exhibit H.  Letter, Applicant’s Mother, dated 6 Feb 04.
     Exhibit I.  Letter, Applicant, dated 2 Mar 04, w/atchs.
     Exhibit J.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 12 Mar 04.
     Exhibit K.  Letter, Applicant, dated 15 Mar 04.



                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Chair


AFBCMR BC-2003-02807


MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

      Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air
Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the
authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat
116), it is directed that:

      The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air
Force relating to [applicant], be corrected to show that:

              a.  He was not disenrolled from the United  States  Air
Force Academy (USAFA) on 3 June 2003, but was  placed  in  an  excess
leave status until his involuntary recall to extended active duty  on
25 June 2003.

              b.  Any and all documentation relating to the  loss  of
his identification card, his conduct probation and disenrollment from
the USAFA be, and hereby is,  declared  void  and  removed  from  his
records.   Documentation  related   to   the   remaining   underlying
disciplinary  infractions  will  remain  in  his  cadet  records   in
accordance with the governing instructions.

              c.  Effective 13 July 2004, he was  honorably  released
from active duty, and re-enrolled in the USAFA as a cadet on 14  July
2004.



            JOE G. LINEBERGER
            Director
            Air Force Review Boards Agency