RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02554
            INDEX NUMBER:  100.07
      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  None

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The DD Form 785, “Record of Disenrollment from Officer  Candidate-Type
Training,”  documenting  his  disenrollment  from  officer   candidate
training be amended in Section IV, “Evaluation To Be Considered In The
Future for Determining Acceptability For Other Officer  Training,”  to
reflect “Highly Recommended” vice “Definitely Not Recommended.”
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The evidence supporting his disenrollment was and is  unsubstantiated.
At no time did he make any statement to a member of the US  Air  Force
that he is or was gay.  His record reflects that he is deserving of  a
“Highly Recommended” recommendation regarding future officer candidate
type training.  He desires to reenter the Air  Force  Reserve  Officer
Training Corps (AFROTC) program to pursue  a  commission  in  the  Air
Force.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 17 Apr 02, the applicant enlisted in the Air Force Reserve for  the
purpose of entering the  Air  Force  Reserve  Officer  Training  Corps
program at the University of Arizona.  He signed the  AFROTC  contract
on the same day.  On 19 Aug 02, his contract was amended to change his
school location to Valdosta State  University.   On  30  Jul  03,  the
applicant  was  notified  by  the  AFROTC  Detachment  Commander  that
disenrollment action under AFROTCI 36-2011 was being initiated against
him  for  failure  to  maintain  military  retention  standards.   The
specific reason was the applicant’s statement to a fellow  cadet  that
he was homosexual.  An investigating officer was appointed.   However,
in his acknowledgement  of  receipt  of  notification,  the  applicant
requested to waive his right to a  disenrollment  investigation.   His
request was approved.  The applicant submitted a statement in response
to the disenrollment action on 5 Aug  03  stating,  essentially,  that
completion of the disenrollment action against him was not  warranted.
On 20 Aug 03, the applicant submitted a letter of resignation  to  the
AFROTC Detachment  Commander  stating  he  was  withdrawing  from  the
university and would no longer be able to perform his  duties  in  the
AFROTC program.  On 18 Sep 03, the applicant was disenrolled from  the
AFROTC program for failure to maintain  military  retention  standards
(making a statement regarding his homosexuality)  and  breach  of  his
AFROTC contract (withdrawing from school).  In Section IV  of  the  DD
Form  785,  the  applicant  was  “Definitely  Not   Recommended”   for
consideration in the future for other officer training.  On 21 Oct 03,
the applicant wrote a letter to the President  of  the  United  States
requesting the policy against homosexuals serving in the  US  military
be changed.  He indicates in the letter he was disenrolled from AFROTC
“when my commander found out that I’m homosexual.”

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFOATS/JA recommends denial of the applicant’s request.  The applicant
was properly disenrolled for failure to  maintain  military  retention
standards and breach of contract.   He  has  not  provided  sufficient
evidence to refute the actions taken against him.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In his response to the Air Force evaluation, the  applicant  indicates
the  decision  regarding  his  disenrollment  is   based   on   poorly
constructed circumstantial evidence.  The applicant points out what he
believes are discrepancies in the facts  of  the  case  as  stated  by
AFOATS/JA.  He discusses the contents of the  two  statements  at  the
center of his disenrollment and how they were misinterpreted and  used
incorrectly against him.  Applicant goes on to explain why he chose to
waive the investigation in his disenrollment case and points out  that
his decision has no bearing on the facts of  the  case  and  does  not
demonstrate an admission or  denial  of  the  facts.   He  states  his
resignation from AFROTC was unavoidable due to  several  hardships  he
experienced.  Furthermore, his AFROTC contract was  wrongly  suspended
while he was under investigation.  AFROTC’s decision  to  suspend  his
contract before his failure to maintain military  retention  standards
was confirmed put them in breach of his contract  and  eliminated  his
obligation to serve the remainder of the term.   He  states  that  his
letter to the President was submitted after his case  was  closed  and
submitted as a civilian.  He does  not  find  it  appropriate  that  a
personal letter written after his separation from  the  Air  Force  is
included in his case.  However, since the letter is  included  in  his
records, he seeks to clarify  what  the  statement  “I  and  countless
others like me” means.  He asserts  the  statement  refers  merely  to
those individuals who have been discharged under 10 USC  654,  whether
said discharge was valid or not.  The statement is  not  in  reference
to, nor does it imply, personnel of a particular sexual preference.

The applicant’s complete response is 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  error  or  injustice.   We  took  notice  of   the
applicant's complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the  case;
however, 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 the applicant has not been the victim of
an error or injustice.  Therefore, 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   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 Docket  Number  BC-2004-
02554 in Executive Session on 19 October 2004, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Rita S. Looney, Panel Chair
      Mr. Terry L. Scott, Member
      Ms. Cheryl V. Jacobson, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 8 Aug 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFOATS/JA, dated 24 Aug 04.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Aug 04.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 11 Sep 04.




                                   RITA S. LOONEY
                                   Panel Chair