RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-01923
            INDEX NUMBER:  110.00
      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  Dean E. Wanderer

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED:  Yes


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  14 Dec 06


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her disenrollment from the Air Force Reserve  Officer  Training  Corps
(AFROTC) program be voided, her scholarship be reinstated, and she  be
commissioned and allowed to serve in the Air Force.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The Report of Investigation (ROI) on which her disenrollment was based
did not contain an accurate report of the circumstances of her case.

One of the officers involved  in  her  investigation  was  biased  and
hostile toward her.

Her privacy was violated  during  the  investigation  by  one  of  the
investigators illegally accessing her e-mail account.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

According to the applicant’s military personnel records, she  enlisted
in the Air Force Reserve on 13 Oct 00 for the purpose of participating
in the AFROTC program.  The applicant was awarded  a  scholarship  for
eight semesters to  pursue  a  degree  in  Aerospace  Engineering  and
projected to be commissioned in fiscal year 2005.  On 21 Feb  02,  the
applicant signed a revised  AFROTC  contract  for  five  semesters  to
pursue a degree in meteorology with  commissioning  projected  in  May
2005.

According to statements contained in the applicant’s case file, on  11
Nov 03, the Commandant of Cadets (COC) launched  an  investigation  of
allegations of cadets cheating on physical  fitness  tests  (PFT)  and
problems with Leadership  Laboratory  (LLAB)  attendance  and  sign-in
procedures.   The  COC  requested  the  assistance  of  one   of   the
instructors, a captain, to conduct the investigation.  On 12  Nov  03,
the COC and instructor interviewed the applicant and questioned her on
the following issues/allegations:

      a. About the applicant being less than honest on her PFT.

        b.  The applicant possibly not reporting a failing grade for a
summer course she had taken.

        c.  The applicant missing  Leadership  Laboratory  and  having
another cadet sign the attendance roster for her.

        d.  The applicant wrongfully having her grade changed  from  a
failing to a passing grade.

According to  the  statement  by  the  COC,  the  applicant  made  the
following responses to the items above:

        a.  The applicant admitted to being  less  than  honest  about
counting her run laps during the PFT.

        b.  The applicant stated she would get a transcript  from  the
school where she took the summer course showing she had withdrawn from
the course.

        c.  The applicant stated she allowed another cadet to sign her
into LLAB despite not having been present.

        d.  The applicant admitted to deceiving the Commander  of  the
AFROTC Detachment (Det) and a professor by lying about a grade change.

According to the COC,  the  applicant  agreed  to  write  a  voluntary
statement to capture the details of  each  incident  mentioned  above.
Based on the results of the investigation, the  AFROTC  Det  commander
initiated disenrollment action against the applicant.  On 18  Nov  03,
he appointed an investigating officer  (IO).   On     2  Dec  03,  the
applicant was  issued  a  Letter  of  Notification  (LON),  which  she
acknowledged receipt of  on  the  same  day.   On     9  Dec  03,  the
applicant provided a memorandum to  HQ  AETC  clarifying  the  written
affidavit she had provided on 12 Nov 03.  The applicant indicated that
for three hours she  was  accused  of  the  following  by  the  AFROTC
instructor observed by the COC:

        a.  Cheating on the 15 Oct 03 PFT.

        b.  Falsifying LLAB attendance records.

        c.  Not reporting a failed summer class.

        d.  Taking advantage of a professor’s death to have a  failing
grade changed to a passing one.

        e.  Sexual misconduct with or bribery of a professor.

        f.  Lying.

The applicant indicates she wrote an affidavit while  in  a  state  of
emotional distress and was confused and  emotionally  distraught  from
the allegations and the  possibility  of  “undeservingly”  losing  her
scholarship.  When she received the LON on 2 Dec 03 and  was  given  a
copy of her affidavit, she realized it did not tell the real story.

On 15 Dec 03, the IO provided his report of investigation (ROI) to the
AFROTC Det commander.  On 6 Jan 04, the IO served a copy of the ROI on
the applicant.  On 15 Jan 04, the applicant provided a response to the
ROI to correct items she considered incorrect.  On 20 Jan 04,  the  IO
clarified the issues contested by the applicant in the ROI.  On 26 Jan
04, the AFROTC Det commander requested from HQ AFROTC the applicant be
investigated for disenrollment.   On  4  Mar  04,  the  applicant  was
disenrolled. On the AF Form 785, “Record of Disenrollment from Officer
Candidate-Type  Training,”   the   applicant   was   “Definitely   Not
Recommended” for other officer training.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFOATS/JA recommends the applicant’s request be denied.  The facts  of
this case appear to be extremely clear.  The applicant received  three
conditional events (CE) during her AFROTC career:

        a.  The first CE was 10 Sep 02 for failure  to  meet  academic
retention standards (FTMARS) when she dropped below full time  student
status during the spring 02 semester.

        b.  The second and third CEs were given after the interview on
18 Nov 03 for failure to meet military  retention  standards  (FTMMRS)
for undesirable character traits when she petitioned to have her grade
changed knowing her professor told her the final  grade  would  be  an
“F.”  She also received a CE for FTMMRS for failing to report that she
had only run three laps during her PFT.

The applicant has not submitted sufficient  evidence  to  substantiate
her request.  She asserts she was interrogated  for  more  than  three
hours  with  no  lunch  breaks.   However,  the  captains  stated  the
applicant arrived at about 1230 on 12 Nov  03  and  within  15  to  20
minutes of the interview began to tell the truth about her actions  on
the PFT, the failed summer course, being signed into LLAB,  and  lying
to the AFROTC Det commander and a professor.  The captains also stated
the interview took approximately 1 hour, 10  minutes.   The  applicant
then volunteered to write an affidavit (after being told  it  was  not
mandatory).  One of the captains also stated the applicant was offered
the time to take a break and get something to eat, but  she  declined.
He further stated the applicant wrote the affidavit  in  an  interview
room alone and after one hour asked for additional paper  to  complete
her statement.  Nothing regarding violation of privacy by the  officer
obtaining copies of the applicant’s      e-mails is mentioned  in  the
investigation and there are no copies of the  e-mails  being  used  as
evidence.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the  Air  Force  evaluation  was  forwarded  to  applicant’s
counsel on 22 Jul 05 for review and comment within 30 days.  To  date,
a response has not been received.

_________________________________________________________________

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 its 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-2005-
01923 in Executive Session on 30 August 2005, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. B J White-Olson, Panel Chair
      Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member
      Mr. Patrick C. Daugherty, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 6 May 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFOATS/JA, dated 18 Jul 05.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 Jul 05.




                                   B J WHITE-OLSON
                                   Panel Chair