RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-01674
            INDEX CODE: 104.00
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  4 Dec 07

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The DD Form 785, Record of Disenrollment From  Officer  Candidate-Type
Training, dated 29 Jun 05, be amended by changing the words in Section
III to reflect “Cadet P voluntarily  resigned  while  appealing  Cadet
Wing Honor Board [WHB] recommendations;” and in the Remarks  block  of
Section IV to reflect “His cumulative Grade Point  Average  was  2.02,
Military Performance Average was 2.83, and Cumulative Physical Fitness
Education Average was 2.11.  Cadet P has not incurred an  Active  Duty
Service Commitment [ADSC] and will receive an honorable discharge.”

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The contested comments constitute an unfair characterization.  He made
a single mistake to which he self-admitted--cheating on a single  part
of  a  homework  assignment  (HW5).   This  happened  because  of   an
accidental opening of another  Cadet’s  homework  submission.   He  is
innocent of the charges presented to the WHB [cheating on  a  computer
science homework assignment (HW6)].  The WHB  was  repeatedly  delayed
until his squadron Air Officer Commanding (AOC), Major K, who strongly
believed in his innocence, was rotated to a new assignment.  He  could
not get the Computer Science  Department  to  provide  copies  of  the
electronic files he was accused of copying  nor  the  log  files  that
could provide details of when  files  were  saved  to  the  Department
server.  The Area Defense Counsel (ADC) and the  Chief  of  the  Honor
Department  also  could  not  obtain  the  files.   Despite   verified
documentation that at least  two  of  three  files  he  submitted  had
earlier file date  time-stamps  than  the  files  he  was  accused  of
copying, his accuser, Major J, blocked his attempts to get  the  files
by removing his access to the directory and not providing the files as
he requested.  He opted to resign because  he  realized  a  successful
appeal of this highly technical case would be  more  challenging,  the
accusing department would likely make the final recommendation, and he
had only five days  to  appeal  without  access  to  available  expert
witnesses, support, or evidence.

In  support  of  his  request,  applicant  provides  nine  attachments
comprised of a statement, the contested  form,  supporting  statements
from his former AOC, emails, various memoranda/related documents,  and
his initial rebuttal to the WHB.  The applicant’s complete submission,
with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered the USAF Academy (USAFA) on 26 Jun  03,  with  a
projected date of commission of 30 May 07.

On 9 Jun 05, a Cadet WHB found the applicant in violation of the Cadet
Wing Honor Code by cheating on a computer science homework assignment.
 After the WHB made its findings,  but  prior  to  the  imposition  of
sanctions, the applicant was advised of his  options,  which  included
resigning in lieu of sanctions.

On 24 Jun 05, the applicant tendered  his  resignation  for  “Personal
Reasons.”  He indicated his understanding that  reapplication  to  the
USAFA was considered on a case-by-case basis and that  by  voluntarily
resigning before his  2007  class  year,  he  would  not  normally  be
approved for  readmission.   He  also  acknowledged  that  if  he  was
disenrolled or resigned, he might be subject to reimbursement for  the
cost of his advanced education.

On 29 Jun 05, the Chief, Cadet Adverse Actions, indicated  in  Section
III of DD Form 785 the following: “At the  time  of  his  resignation,
Cadet P was found in violation of the Cadet Wing Honor  Code  on  five
allegations (two separate incidents) of lying and cheating.   Cadet  P
elected to resign prior to sanctions  for  all  five  violations.   In
addition, Cadet P was  on  academic  probation.”   Section  IV  has  a
numerical recommendation of “3,” which indicated the applicant  should
not be considered without weighing the “needs of the service”  against
the reasons for the disenrollment.  The Remarks block in this  section
reflected the following:  “His  cumulative  Grade  Point  Average  was
2.02, cumulative Military Performance Average was 2.83, and cumulative
Physical Education Average was 2.11.   Cadet  P  was  given  and  took
advantage of an opportunity for a commission and an Air  Force  career
and should not be considered for future commissioning without weighing
the needs of the service against the reason for disenrollment.   Cadet
P  has  not  incurred  an  ADSC  and  he  will  receive  an  honorable
discharge.”

On 6 Jul 05, the Chief, Cadet Adverse Actions,  HQ  USAFA/JA,  advised
the applicant that the Superintendent  accepted  his  resignation  and
directed his honorable discharge.

On 14 Jul 05, the applicant was honorably discharged, with a narrative
reason for separation as “Secretarial Authority,” and no ADSC.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ USAFA/JA recommends denial.  The results of the WHB  had  not  been
processed through the Commandant’s office at the  time  the  applicant
submitted his resignation; therefore, the Commandant had not even  had
time to decide  whether  the  applicant  should  be  placed  on  Honor
probation or recommended to the Superintendent for disenrollment.   By
resigning when he did, the applicant waived any further review of  the
facts as found by the WHB.  The mandatory information to  be  included
on the DD  Form  785  and  the  guidance  in  making  the  appropriate
numerical recommendation in Section IV are provided  by  AFI  36-2012.
Section III of the form correctly states the circumstances surrounding
the  applicant’s  resignation.   The  Section   IV   remarks   are   a
continuation of the comments in Section III, and clearly  support  the
decision to make a numerical  recommendation  of  “3.”   The  guidance
provided by the instruction itself utilizes the exact circumstances of
this case as an example of when a “3”  rating  should  be  made.   The
contested comments are completely accurate and correctly  reflect  the
circumstances  surrounding  the  applicant’s  disenrollment  from  the
USAFA.

The complete HQ USAFA/JA evaluation, with attachments, is  at  Exhibit
B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the Air  Force  evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the
applicant on 14 Jul 06 for review and comment within 30 days  (Exhibit
C).  As of this date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.    The applicant has exhausted all remedies  provided  by  existing
law or regulations.

2.    The application was timely filed.

3.    Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the existence of error or injustice to  warrant  partial  relief.   We
reached this  conclusion  after  thoroughly  reviewing  the  available
evidence and, while finding the applicant did cheat  with  respect  to
the HW5 assignment, we could not determine with certainty  whether  he
committed the other violations of which he was accused. Unfortunately,
the applicant chose to resign  before  Commandant  and  Superintendent
review and cadet appeal processes were concluded.   Consequently,  any
potential additional information and evidence, as well  as  the  final
outcome, are unknown.  Based on what he indicated at the time  of  his
self-admission, the applicant intentionally copied portions of another
cadet’s work on the HW5 assignment.  What is not clear is  whether  he
also cheated on the HW6 assignment and additional portions of the HW5.
 Given the fact he did cheat on the HW5 and  only  self-admitted  when
confronted by the course instructor,  additional  misconduct  of  this
nature is not entirely implausible.  On the  other  hand,  significant
collaboration among  the  cadets  was  permitted  and  their  homework
submissions revealed numerous  apparent  similarities.  Whether  these
similarities were the results of allowable collaboration or deliberate
cheating was not clear.  We also noted the supporting statements  from
the applicant’s AOC, Major K, including his proposed rewording of  the
DD Form 785 in his 6 Nov 05 memo.  The AOC indicated his  belief  that
the applicant was innocent  of  the  additional  charges,  the  course
instructor unwittingly created an environment  virtually  guaranteeing
similarities between individual  and  group  work,  and  the  existing
comments on the DD Form 785 misrepresented the facts.   To  a  certain
extent we agree and thus are amenable to changing the DD Form  785  as
suggested by the  AOC.   In  this  regard,  we  believe  his  proposed
wording, rather  than  that  of  the  applicant  or  the  USAFA,  more
accurately reflects the known and unknown aspects of  this  case.   In
view  of  the  above,  we  also  considered  whether   the   numerical
recommendation in Section IV should be changed; however, we  concluded
the “3” rating should stand as it remains supportable by the available
evidence.   Therefore,  we  recommend  the  applicant’s   records   be
corrected as indicated below.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the  Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating to the APPLICANT be  corrected  to  show  that  DD Form  785,
Record of Disenrollment from Officer  Candidate-Type  Training,  dated
29 June 2005, was amended as follows:

      a.  In Section III, delete the  sentences  “Cadet P  elected  to
resign prior to  sanctions  for  all  five  violations.  In  addition,
Cadet P  was  on  academic  probation”  and  replace   with   “Cadet P
voluntarily resigned in lieu of Cadet Wing Honor Violations.”

      b.  In the Remarks block of  Section  IV,  delete  the  sentence
“Cadet P was  given  and  took  advantage  of  an  opportunity  for  a
commission and an Air Force career and should not  be  considered  for
future commissioning without weighing the needs of the service against
the reason for disenrollment.”
_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 24 October 2006 under the provisions of  AFI  36-
2603:

                 Mr. Jay H. Jordan, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Josephine L. Davis, Member
                 Mr. Alan A. Blomgren, Member

All members  voted  to  correct  the  records,  as  recommended.   The
following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR  Docket  Number  BC-
2006-01674 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 24 Mar 06, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Letter, HQ USAFA/JA, dated 22 Jun 06, w/atchs.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Jul 06.




                                   JAY H. JORDAN
                                   Panel Chair


AFBCMR BC-2006-01674




MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

      Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air
Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority
of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is
directed that:

      The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air
Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that DD Form 785,
Record of Disenrollment from Officer Candidate-Type Training, dated
29 June 2005, was amended as follows:

           a.  In Section III, delete the sentences, “Cadet Payne
elected to resign prior to sanctions for all five violations. In
addition, Cadet Payne was on academic probation” and replace with,
“Cadet Payne voluntarily resigned in lieu of Cadet Wing Honor
Violations.”

           b.  In the Remarks block of Section IV, delete the
sentence, “Cadet Payne was given and took advantage of an opportunity
for a commission and an Air Force career and should not be considered
for future commissioning without weighing the needs of the service
against the reason for disenrollment.”





         JOE G. LINEBERGER

         Director

         Air Force Review Boards Agency