RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-02351
            INDEX CODE:  104.00
            COUNSEL:  NONE
            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

      MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 30 Jan 07

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be reinstated to the United States Air Force Academy (USAFA).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His disenrollment was  affected  by  improper  procedure,  inconsistency  in
recommendations,   and   command   influence   to   alter    the    original
recommendation.

In support of his request, applicant provided documentation associated  with
his  disenrollment.   His  complete  submission,  with  attachments,  is  at
Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant entered the USAFA on 27 Jun 02, scheduled for commissioning on  31
May 06.  On 2 Mar 05, he admitted  to  cheating  by  using  answers  he  had
memorized from a version of the depth perception  test  to  gain  an  unfair
advantage on the re-examination of his depth perception,  On 25  Apr  05,  a
Cadet Sanctions Recommendation Panel reviewed the case and all  three  panel
members recommended probation.  The  applicant's  Cadet  Squadron  Commander
and Cadet Squadron Honor Officer also recommended probation  while  his  Air
Officer Commander (AOC),  Group  Commander,  and  the  Chief  of  the  Honor
Division all recommended disenrollment.  The case  was  reviewed  and  found
legally sufficient and forwarded to the Commandant of Cadets.  On 4 Mar  05,
the Commandant of Cadets  recommended  disenrollment.   On  25 May  05,  the
Superintendent directed that he be disenrolled and  he  was  ordered  to  be
enlisted on active duty for a  period  of  two  years.   He  disagreed  with
enlisted active duty as a means  of  repaying  his  service  commitment  and
requested an educational delay to pursue an AFROTC commission.   On  18  Aug
05, the Secretary  of  the  Air  Force  Personnel  Council  disapproved  his
request and directed he be ordered to enlisted active duty for a  period  of
two years.  He entered active duty on 13 Sep 05 and is currently serving  in
the grade of airman first class.

_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

USAFA/JA  recommends  denial.   JA  states  he  does  not  provide  specific
examples to support  his  allegations  of  improper  procedures  of  command
influence.  The USAFA Form 0-299 provided clearly  shows  a  consistency  in
formal recommendations  for  disenrollment  by  the  AOC,  Group  AOC,  34th
Training  Group  Commander,  and  Commandant  of  Cadets.   The  letters  of
recommendation only serve to support his request for  Educational  Delay  to
pursue  an  AFROTC  commission   and   do   not   rescind   their   original
recommendations  for  disenrollment.   The  email  written  by  Major   M---
indicates Colonel C---"recommended probation" but cannot be verified  as  to
the context in which  it  was  sent.   The  email  does  not  address  honor
probation  for  the  incident  in  question.   Regardless,  Colonel   C---'s
official recommendation  on  the  Form  0-299  indicated  his  position  for
disenrollment.

LTC C--- was contacted  and  relayed  that  when  the  case  was  originally
presented to him, he found the applicant's behavior particularly  egregious.
 He believed cheating on an eye exam endangered lives and property  and  was
disappointed that the applicant chose loyalty to another cadet  rather  than
the Air Force.  LTC C---, in retrospect believed the applicant  cheated  out
of sheer desperation to be a  pilot  and  that  his  actions  were  more  of
displaced desires  rather  than  wanton  disregard  for  rules.   He  stated
unequivocally that he was not improperly influenced in any manner  with  any
rating he chose to give.

The applicant was provided the entire  case  prior  to  his  opportunity  to
appeal but  never  raised  any  issues  of  improper  command  influence  or
improper procedures  in  his  letter  to  the  Superintendent.   He  instead
focused his appeal on admitting  his  mistake  and  explaining  how  he  has
learned from his actions.  A thorough legal review was conducted  to  ensure
he was afforded all due process.  The Superintendent independently  reviewed
the entire case file, including his appeal, prior to  making  his  decision.
It was determined his honor violation was particularly egregious because  he
cheated on an eye exam  in  order  to  become  a  pilot  and  was  therefore
disenrolled.

The JA evaluation, with attachments is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant responded that  the  documentation  provided  in  his  application
clearly demonstrated that the initial appeal package submitted  was  changed
and re-dated on 21 Apr 05.  Lt Col C--- told him  he  was  recommending  him
for probation and he watched him fill out the Form 0-299.   An  email  dated
that same date confirmed the  recommendation  for  probation.   He  did  not
present any of this to the Superintendent because he hoped  he  would  grant
probation and he did not want to  try  to  implicate  anyone  and  make  the
remainder of his time at the Academy more  difficult.   He  has  no  way  to
prove what was said to him behind  closed  doors.   Cadets  are  held  at  a
higher standard than the officer they are to become.  Something seems  wrong
that a Cadet with a perfectly clean record could make  a  first  mistake  in
three years and receive the  sort  of  punishment  he  received.   Applicant
knows what he did was wrong and believes he should have  been  punished  for
it; however, the punishment does not fit the crime.

His 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.  After careful review  of  the  applicant's
submission and the circumstances surrounding the  applicant's  disenrollment
from the United States Air Force Academy, we find no evidence  of  error  or
injustice with respect to his disenrollment  action.   In  this  regard,  it
appears that responsible officials  applied  appropriate  standards  in  the
conduct of the Cadet Sanctions Recommendation Panel (CSRP)  proceedings  and
disenrollment process.  We are not persuaded by his assertions that his  due
process rights were violated and it is our opinion that  the  actions  taken
were conducted within the guidelines of the established  procedures  of  the
administrative  proceeding.   Therefore,  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.  In the  absence  of  evidence  to
the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting  the  relief
sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

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-2005-
02351 in Executive Session on 8 Nov 05, under  the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

      Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Panel Chair
      Ms. Jan Mulligan, Member
      Mr. Alan A. Blomgren, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 20 Jul 05, w/atchs
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ USAFA/JA, dated 1 Sep 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 Sep 05.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 15 Oct 05.




                                   KATHLEEN F. GRAHAM
                                   Panel Chair