RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-01986
            INDEX CODE:  104.00
            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  24 Dec 06

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The rating in Section IV of DD Form 785, Record of Disenrollment  from
Officer Candidate-Type Training, be changed from #5 to  #1  or  #2  so
that he may participate in a Reserve  Officer  Training  Corps  (ROTC)
program.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was  the  victim  of  injustice  perpetuated  by  his  Air  Officer
Commanding  (AOC)  who  had  vowed  from  the  beginning  to  get  him
disenrolled from the US Air Force Academy (USAFA).  The  AOC  did  not
like the idea that he had been recruited to play football and had been
admitted directly to the USAFA.  The AOC’s  mistreatment  of  him  was
personal and biased.  Although he received  an  Article  15  from  the
Commandant of Cadets (COC) for breaking the rules on  2 Oct  04,  this
punishment was not enough for the AOC, who again  vowed  to  have  him
disenrolled and to make sure he did not meet the requirements  of  his
Honor probation.  The AOC ordered him to submit his resignation, which
was an abuse of power and authority.  He faced insurmountable odds  in
fulfilling his obligations as a cadet and the AOC  would  not  provide
him any expertise.  He asks that the rating be changed so that when he
graduates from college, he can become an Air Force officer.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The following information was extracted  from  the  applicant’s  USAFA
file, which is provided at Exhibit B.

On 1 Jul  04,  the  applicant  entered  the  USAFA  with  a  scheduled
commission date of 28 May 08.

He was placed on Academic probation on 12 Oct 04.

On 19 Oct 04, the applicant  was  notified  of  the  AOC's  intent  to
recommend nonjudicial punishment upon him for dereliction of  duty  by
willfully failing to refrain from drinking alcohol while underage,  on
or about 2 Oct 04.  On 22 Oct 04, after consulting with  counsel,  the
applicant waived his right  to  a  trial  by  court-martial,  did  not
request a personal appearance but did submit a  written  presentation.
On 29 Oct 04, the COC found him guilty and imposed punishment  in  the
form  of  forfeiture  of  $396.00  pay  per  month  for  two   months,
restriction to the USAFA for 50 days, and a reprimand.  The  applicant
did not appeal the punishment and the Article  15  was  filed  in  his
Unfavorable Information File (UIF).

On 28 Oct 04, the applicant received a Letter of Counseling (LOC)  for
failing to maintain his hair within standards.

On 3 Nov 04, he  was  sanctioned  and  received  an  LOC  for  wearing
civilian clothing outside of the cadet area on 2 Oct 04.

On 15 Nov 04,  the  applicant  was  placed  on  Conduct  and  Aptitude
probation for six  months  for  underage  drinking,  wearing  civilian
clothes, and lying.

The applicant received individual counseling on 17 Nov 04, 18 Nov  04,
and 7 Dec 04, regarding fourth-class responsibilities and for  failing
his knowledge test.

On 11 Jan 05, the applicant was entered in a six-month Honor probation
for lying.

On 21 Jan 05, he attended a counseling meeting for wearing  a  running
suit without a USAFA T-shirt underneath, in violation of his probation
sanctions.  The applicant’s other deficiencies were also noted;  e.g.,
poor decorum, not taking responsibility for his actions, maintaining a
victim mentality, and remaining defensive  when  offered  constructive
criticism.  Attendees  included  the  applicant’s  squadron   training
officer and element leader.

The applicant received another LOC, dated 23 Jan 05, for being  caught
in the squadron hallways in the incorrect uniform.  Further, he failed
to speak to an upperclassman with proper decorum.

He received a Letter of Admonishment (LOA), dated 26 Jan 05,  for  not
scheduling a mandated appointment,  being  late  for  the  appointment
after he finally scheduled it, and arriving  with  his  service  dress
uniform  in  a  state  of  disarray  and  his  sideburns  not   within
regulation.

A Memo for the Record, dated 22 Feb  05,  documented  the  applicant’s
failure on multiple knowledge tests over the course of the semester.

On 7 Mar 05, the applicant was notified that, on 16 Mar 05,  he  would
meet a Military Review Committee (MRC) for  military  misconduct,  and
failing Conduct probation and Aptitude probation.

An 8 Mar  05  memo  from  the  applicant’s  cadet  squadron  commander
summarized the decision made by  a  Squadron  Commander  Review  Board
(SCRB) on 24 Feb 05.  The  applicant  was  currently  on  Conduct  and
Aptitude, Honor, and Academic probation.  The applicant was to be sent
to a “hard look” MRC and recommended for disenrollment.  He had failed
to meet the deadlines in every aspect  of  his  Honor  probation,  and
continued to fail in his duty as a cadet since  his  last  SCRB  three
weeks before.  [Note: The applicant apparently appeared  before  SCRBs
on 4 Nov 04, 31 Jan 05, and 24 Feb 05.] The memo noted  the  applicant
continued to fail in his uniform wear, decorum,  professionalism,  and
understanding of integrity and honor.  The board  felt  the  applicant
had been given more than enough chances to prove himself.

In 8 Mar 05,  the  applicant  received  another  LOC  for  failing  to
complete training and turn in one of the  completion  certificates  by
close of business on 2 Mar 05.

The file also documents numerous individual counseling sessions, minor
infractions, and failures to meet standards.  His fellow cadets  rated
him 34 out of 34 cadets.

On 15 Mar 05, the applicant submitted his  voluntary  resignation  for
“personal” reasons.  He  indicated  his  understanding  that,  if  his
resignation was accepted, he may still have to fulfill an active  duty
service commitment (ADSC), reimburse the government for  the  cost  of
his education, or fulfill other legal obligations to the US.  He  also
understood that reapplication to the USAFA is considered on a case-by-
case basis and that by voluntarily resigning during his  fourth  class
year, he would not normally be approved for readmission.

On 23 Mar 05, the Chief, Cadet Adverse Actions, submitted DD Form 785.
 The reasons for the applicant’s disenrollment were:  At the  time  of
his resignation, he had received an Article 15 for underage  drinking;
and four LOCs for failing to complete training, failing to be  in  the
correct uniform, failing  to  address  an  upperclassman  with  proper
decorum, wearing civilian clothes, and failing to keep his hair within
standards.  He also received an LOA for  not  scheduling  a  mandatory
appointment.  In  Section  IV  of  the  Form  785,  Evaluation  to  be
Considered in the  Future  for  Determining  Acceptability  for  Other
Officer  Training,  the  applicant   received   #5   (Definitely   not
recommended).  A  rating  of  #1  is  Highly  Recommended  and  #2  is
Recommended as an Average Candidate.

The applicant was disenrolled from the USAFA on 23 Mar 05.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ USAFA/JA provides a statement from the  applicant’s  AOC  regarding
the applicant’s allegations of personal animosity.  The  AOC  admitted
to  informing  the  applicant  that  he  was  being  recommended   for
disenrollment for failing probation but  denies  being  vindictive  or
ordering the applicant to submit his resignation.  HQ  USAFA/JA  notes
the resignation the applicant signed indicated he was  not  threatened
or coerced into signing.  The applicant’s submitted  documents  cannot
be verified and  were  not  part  of  the  official  personnel  record
reviewed by the USAFA Superintendent.  The applicant was afforded  due
process and would have been allowed to add additional matters  and  to
appeal the recommendations had he not elected to resign.  The DD  Form
785 is a document generated after disenrollment  action  is  completed
and is based on  a  cadet’s  overall  history  at  the  Academy.   The
recommendations on the document are verified  by  the  Commandant  and
approved by  the  Superintendent.   The  applicant’s  records  clearly
reflect a pattern of misconduct and multiple probations, two of  which
he was failing.  Based on the fact that he was scheduled to meet a MRC
for failing  Aptitude  and  Conduct  probation,  was  recommended  for
disenrollment for failing  Honor  probation,  and  had  six  different
instances of documented adverse actions, there is enough  evidence  of
substandard performance to support the #5 rating on the DD  Form  785.
Denial is recommended.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant contends AOC is lying and playing semantics.  He  quotes
an excerpt from the AOC’s statement at Exhibit C:  “At no time  did  I
order [the applicant] to initiate a Form 34.   However,  at  the  time
that I failed his probation, I did hand him a Form 34 and told  him  I
expected him to fill it out.  After he declined, I  specifically  told
him that I could not order him to do so but that if  he  did  not,  he
would be submitted for disenrollment for failing his probations.”   At
the time he was ordered to  fill  out  the  form,  another  cadet  was
present and witnessed  this  order.   He  believes  this  cadet  would
respond  truthfully  if  asked  about  this  incident.   The  AOC  was
vindictive and placed him on probation rather than sending him  for  a
hard-look MRC because he [the AOC] did not  want  to  send  the  other
cadet, who had gotten into trouble with him, to an MRC.

A complete copy of the applicant’s 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.  After a thorough review  of  the
applicant’s USAFA personnel records and his  submission,  we  are  not
persuaded the rating on his DD  From  786  should  be  upgraded.   The
applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we do not find  these
uncorroborated  assertions,  in  and   by   themselves,   sufficiently
persuasive to override the evidence of his  own  infractions  and  the
rationale  provided  by  the  USAFA/JA.    The   applicant’s   primary
contentions appear to be that he was the victim of the AOC’s abuse  of
authority, was overcome by insurmountable odds against fulfilling  his
obligations as a cadet, and was essentially  coerced  into  resigning.
The applicant  has  not  established  to  our  satisfaction  that  his
resignation  and  disenrollment  were  the  result  of  prejudice  and
coercion.  The applicant was  punished  by  Article  15  for  underage
drinking, was counseled repeatedly for failing to meet standards,  and
was placed on multiple probations.  It cannot be established that  the
applicant’s AOC harbored a  personal  dislike  of  him;  however,  the
available evidence establishes the applicant was counseled repeatedly,
afforded due process, and given opportunities to rehabilitate himself.
 We found it noteworthy that even the applicant’s peers rated  him  34
out of 34 cadets, and that instead of attempting  to  learn  from  his
mistakes, he appeared not to hold himself  responsible.   The  DD Form
786 is generated after disenrollment and is based on a cadet’s overall
history at the Academy.  The document’s recommendations  are  verified
by the Commandant and approved by the Superintendent.  We are  not  an
investigative body obliged to contact  witnesses  on  the  applicant’s
behalf, and he has  provided  us  no  compelling  basis  on  which  to
overturn these officials’ determinations  regarding  his  performance.
The applicant has the options of  applying  for  a  ROTC  program  and
pleading his case, if he wishes, or enlisting in the military and then
applying for officer training.  However, he has not convinced us  that
he has been the victim of either an error or an  injustice  warranting
relief through the correction of records process.

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  issue(s)   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  this  application  in
Executive Session on 30 November 2005 under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

                 Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
                 Ms. Dorothy P. Loeb, Member
                 Ms. Renee M. Collier, Member

The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2005-01986 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 Jun 05, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ USAFA/JA, dated 28 Jun 05, w/atchs
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Jul 05.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 15 Aug 05.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Chair