RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02064
            INDEX CODE:  115.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Air Force Reserve Officer Training  Corps  (AFROTC)  Undergraduate
Pilot Training (UPT) slot be reinstated.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The AFROTC program  unjustly  took  away  his  UPT  opportunity,  thus
denying him a highly desired career path as an Air Force pilot.

In  support  of  his  appeal,  the  applicant  provided  an   expanded
statement, supportive statements, his AFROTC  contract,  documentation
pertaining to his disenrollment, and other documents  associated  with
the matter under review.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 29 Mar 01, the applicant contracted an agreement to participate  in
the Air Force  Reserve  Officer  Training  Corps  AFROTC  Professional
Officer Course Program at the University of Idaho.  Upon the  date  of
his graduation, he was to be commissioned as a line  officer  (pilot).
On 21 May 02, his categorization as a pilot was changed.

Applicant was appointed a second lieutenant, Reserve of the Air Force,
on 23 Aug 02 and was voluntarily ordered to extended active duty on 21
Sep 02.

Information extracted from the Personnel Data System  (PDS)  indicates
that the applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of
first lieutenant, having been promoted to that grade on 7 Sep 04.  His
Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 21 Sep 02.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFROTC/CC recommended  denial  noting  the  applicant’s  disenrollment
investigation was based  on  multiple  discrepancies  surrounding  his
admitted drug use.  They noted  the  applicant  initially  denied  any
prior marijuana use on his AF Form 2030, USAF Drug and  Alcohol  Abuse
Certificate, on 22 Aug 98.  On 25 Jan 00, he denied  any  use  on  his
DD Form 2492, DoD Medical Examination Board Report of Medical History.
 On 6 Sep 00, he recertified on his AF Form 2030 that he had not  used
any drugs, including marijuana.  However, when completing his security
clearance application on 2 Oct 00, he admitted to marijuana use on  14
Jun 99.  Since this was after he completed his initial AF  Form  2030,
it was considered post-orientation drug use and was disqualifying.  He
countered this disqualifying condition by stating  he  put  the  wrong
date and that his drug use occurred on 14 Jun 98.  If  that  is  true,
AFROTC/CC indicated the applicant submitted a false official statement
about the marijuana use approximately 68 days later when he  initially
certified on  his  AF Form  2030  he  had  not  used  marijuana.   The
applicant then claimed he misread the initial  AF Form  2030,  the  DD
Form 2492, the second AF Form 2030 during  recertification,  and  then
entered the correct information later  when  completing  his  security
clearance paperwork.  Since they could not prove he deliberately lied,
AFROTC/CC stated they did not disenroll him from AFROTC.

According to AFROTC/CC, there are two plausible explanations for these
events, and they are either the  applicant  submitted  false  official
statements three times in a row, or he is not competent enough to fill
out simple basic forms correctly.  In either case, he  should  not  be
considered for reinstatement of his pilot slot.

AFROTC/CC noted the pilot slot was offered to the applicant during his
tenure as  a  cadet  at  AFROTC.   The  pilot  slot  was  deliberately
withdrawn and given to the highest qualified cadet on the AFROTC pilot
alternate list.  Once the applicant graduated and went on active duty,
he was no longer an AFROTC asset.  Therefore, if he desires to earn  a
future pilot slot, he should compete among his peers on active duty in
the Undergraduate Flying Training Board.

AFROTC/CC indicated it concurred with the actions  taken  against  the
applicant and does  not  believe  he  was  mistreated  or  denied  due
consideration  in  his  disenrollment  investigation.   In  fact,   by
allowing him to continue in the program and gain a commission  in  the
Air Force, the AFROTC was most gracious and gave him  the  benefit  of
the doubt.

A complete copy of the AFROTC/CC evaluation, with attachments,  is  at
Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPAO indicated they  have  no  recommendation  regarding  actions
taken against the applicant prior to  his  entering  on  active  duty.
They did note that he competed for pilot training during their Mar  04
selection board but was not selected.  However, since he has two  more
years of eligibility, he may apply for the  2005  and  2006  selection
boards  before  exceeding  the  maximum  five  years  of  commissioned
service.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPAO evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the advisory  opinions  and  furnished  a  response
indicating he has always held the  highest  integrity  and  has  never
falsified any  Air  Force  paperwork.   He  proved  the  date  of  his
marijuana experimentation to the disenrollment board and  it  was  the
only time in his life he experimented with marijuana.  He has  matured
since  that  time  and  is  more  responsible  and  more  thorough  on
everything he accomplishes.  He asks  that  the  Board  give  him  the
chance to prove to the Air Force and this great country that he  would
make a very successful aviator.

Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

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.   The  applicant's  complete
submission was thoroughly  reviewed  and  his  contentions  were  duly
noted.  However, we do not find the  applicant’s  assertions  and  the
documentation  provided  in  support  of   his   appeal   sufficiently
persuasive to  override  the  rationale  provided  by  AFROTC/CC.   No
evidence has been presented which shows to our satisfaction  that  the
information used as a basis for  the  withdrawal  of  the  applicant’s
AFROTC  pilot  slot  was  erroneous,  or  there  was   an   abuse   of
discretionary authority.  Furthermore, we note the applicant  competed
for pilot  training  while  on  active  duty  but  was  not  selected.
However, it also appears he will have other opportunities to  compete,
since he has two more years of eligibility.  In view of the foregoing,
and in the absence of sufficient evidence to the  contrary,  we  agree
with the recommendation of the AFROTC/CC and adopt  its  rationale  as
the basis for our decision that the applicant has  failed  to  sustain
his burden of establishing he has  suffered  either  an  error  or  an
injustice.  Accordingly, 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   issues   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 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-
2004-02064 in Executive Session on 16 Dec 04, under the provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Rita S. Looney, Panel Chair
      Mr. Garry G. Sauner, Member
      Mr. Gregory A. Parker, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 23 Jun 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFROTC/CC, dated 13 Jul 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPAO, dated 17 Aug 04.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Aug 04.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, applicant, dated 14 Sep 04, w/atchs.




                                   RITA S. LOONEY
                                   Panel Chair