RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-02075
            INDEX CODE:  104.00
            COUNSEL:  NONE
            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

      MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 2 Jan 07

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  A determination of a U.S. Air Force Academy  (USAFA)  Wing  Honor  Board
(WHB) be overturned, and he be reinstated in the USAFA.

2.  Combat/Water Survival Training be added to  his  military  education  on
his discharge documents.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was disenrolled on grounds of taking  a  military  knowledge  test  twice
without proper authorization.  On 15 Apr 04, his squadron was informed  they
would be required to take a test and that if a passing score of 80  was  not
achieved they could take it again in the future.  Around 1100 he elected  to
take the certification test prior to lunch.   He  opened  the  test  on  the
Academy's webpage (Falcon Quest).  Once he realized it was a timed  test  he
immediately closed it believing that  the  timer  would  not  start.   After
lunch when he logged-on to Falcon Quest he realized the test had  timed  out
and had given him a score  of  zero.   He  contacted  Major  E---,  his  Air
Officer Commanding (AOC), who sent him an email informing him  that  Captain
F--- would reset the test  sometime  that  afternoon  and  he  should  check
periodically so he could retake it.  At 1536  he  logged  back  onto  Falcon
Quest and saw the test had been reset.   He  retook  the  test  receiving  a
score of 76.  He reviewed the answers  he  missed  with  his  roommate.   At
1645, he checked his email and saw he had two emails.  The  first  was  from
Falcon Quest indicating he  had  been  issued  a  test  that  needed  to  be
completed that day.  The second was a forwarded email between  Captain  F---
and Major E--- stating the test had been  reset.   He  logged-on  to  Falcon
Quest and saw that the test he previously took  was  gone.   He  opened  the
test that had been reset and took the test again receiving a  score  of  92.
He saw the emails he received as authorization to take the test again;  and,
for that reason did not inform Major E--- after taking the test  again.   He
thought Captain F--- or someone in her office would  know  about  the  first
test he completed since it had been reset twice.

His Honor Board case was filled with procedural errors, misguided and  false
counsel and oversights in the processing of his case.  He  pointed  out  the
errors but no action was taken to correct  them.   His  action  was  not  an
intent to cheat the system; it was a series of misunderstandings,  mistakes,
and miscommunications.  He knows he should have told someone that there  was
a problem with Falcon Quest and that his test  had  been  reset  twice.   He
acted in the best way he saw possible.  He did  not  cheat  or  lie  at  his
clarification, Honor Board, or in any of the appeals.

In support of his request, applicant  provided  a  personal  statement,  and
documentation pertaining to his disenrollment from the USAFA.  His  complete
submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant entered the USAFA on 26 Jun 03 in the Class of 2007.   On  24  May
04, a Wing Honor Board (WHB) was convened to determine if the applicant  had
cheated by taking the  Class  of  2007  Certification  Test  twice,  without
proper authorization, and using information received  from  the  first  test
and discussions with his roommate to gain an unfair advantage on the  second
test.  The WHB determined that he violated the Honor Code  by  cheating  and
recommended six months probation.  On 9 Jul 04, he  was  notified  that  the
Commandant  was  recommending  he  be  disenrolled.   On  15 Sep   04,   the
Superintendent directed he be disenrolled and given an honorable  discharge.
 He was discharged on 4 Oct 04.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

USAFA/JA recommends denial.  JA rebuts  in  particular  two  of  applicant’s
statements in his request to the Board: first, that the  USAFA’s  "'director
of the legal division determined that  proper  authorization  was  given  to
take  the  test  twice'"  and,  second,  that   "'leadership   based   their
concurrence to the finding of the honor  board...largely  on  assumed,  non-
existent testimony.'"

As to the first statement by applicant, JA notes  that,  while  the  earlier
Air Force legal review  stated  that  "'enough  evidence  was  presented  to
support simple miscommunication and misunderstanding on the part of Capt. F-
--, Major E---, and C4C R---,'" that  review  found,  that  "'C4C  R---  did
however cheat by gaining an unfair advantage after reviewing the  test  with
his roommate, using the information  to  improve  his  score  by  almost  20
points, and failing to report the third log-in to  his  AOC.'"   As  to  the
second statement,  above,  by  applicant,  JA  replicated  portions  of  the
testimony of Cadet S---, applicant’s  roommate;  this  testimony  indicated,
among other things, that S--- told R--- the  correct  answers  to  the  test
questions R--- had answered incorrectly  shortly  before  R---  re-took  the
test, and that S--- mentioned to R---regarding the question  of  whether  to
re-take the test -- that, '"if it was me, I would send e-mail  to  Maj  E---
telling him you had just took the test and reviewed the answers.'"

JA states no evidence has been provided to show that  anyone  determined  he
had proper authorization to take the Certification Test  twice.   There  was
clearly miscommunication, as he was able  to  take  the  test  three  times;
however, this miscommunication did not provide him proper  authorization  to
take the certification test again.   This  is  especially  true  considering
that he received all the correct answers from his roommate.  If he had  been
truly confused, he should have contacted his  AOC  for  clarification.   The
applicant disputes this evidence, stating he never asked his  roommate  what
he should do and he never heard his roommate recommend he contact Major E---
.  JA concludes that, by not disclosing to anyone in his  chain  of  command
that he had taken the Certification Test again,  he  cheated  and  for  that
reason  he  was  disenrolled.   He  gained  an  unfair  advantage  by  using
information he obtained from the first test to  improve  his  score  on  the
second test, and thus, his disenrollment was justified.

The JA evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states he followed the orders of  his  superior  officers  at  two
separate times.  He took the  test,  submitted  it  and  received  a  grade.
Captain F--- erased his completed test, reset it and ordered him to  re-take
the test.   His state of mind when he received  the  second  set  of  orders
from Captain  F---  was  that  she  already  knew  he  completed  the  test,
submitted it and received a grade, therefore he would take  the  test  again
as ordered.  He reiterates that he admits he was wrong not  to  report  this
to his AOC.  However, at no time did he think his  actions  had  honor  code
implications since he was following orders.  Additionally, he was told  that
if he failed this test he could  take  the  test  again.   His  Honor  Board
recommended probation as punishment but the  Commandant  chose  to  overturn
the   recommendation   and   recommend   disenrollment.    He   based   this
recommendation on the erroneous belief that he asked his  roommate  what  he
should do when he received the second set of orders and  that  he  counseled
him to contact the AOC; this never occurred.  He never  asked  his  roommate
anything nor did he hear him say anything.

His  requests  for  Honor  Division  counseling  were  either   ignored   or
disregarded due to the time crunch  around  graduation.   The  decision  for
disenrollment is unjust based on the facts of the case  and  the  concession
made by the Chief of the Legal Division and the Chief of the Honor  Division
that proper authorization was given for him to take the test a second  time.
 He was found guilty of taking the test twice without proper  authorization,
not taking the test twice without contacting his AOC.   Disenrollment  is  a
gross injustice when no intent to cheat on his part was evident or  planned.


His complete response, with attachments, 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  Wing  Honor  Board  (WHB)  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.  With respect to his request  that
Combat/Water Survival Training be  added  to  his  discharge  documents,  we
reviewed his DD Form 214 and it appears that the certificate  was  completed
properly and in compliance with the governing instruction and the  applicant
has  provided  no  evidence  which  would  lead  us  to  believe  otherwise.
Therefore,  favorable  action  on  that  portion  of  his  request  is   not
warranted.  Accordingly, in  the  absence  of  persuasive  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 AFBCMR Docket Number  BC-2005-
02075 in Executive Session on 16 Nov 05, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

      Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Panel Chair
      Mr. Wallace F. Beard, Jr., Member
      Mr. Terry L. Scott, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 9 Jun 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, USAFA/JA, dated 22 Sep 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Oct 05.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 28 Oct 05, w/atchs.




                                   LAURENCE M. GRONER
                                   Panel Chair