RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-03110
            INDEX CODE: 102.00
      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL: None
            HEARING DESIRED: No

      MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 22 Jan 08

____________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be  reinstated  as  a  commissioned  officer,  receive  an  out-of-cycle
commission, credited time in  service,  and  back  pay  based  on  original
Officer Training School commissioning date of 23 Sep 05.

____________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Per Air Force Instruction (AFI) 24 TRS OI 36-2, 1.4.3, while on the Special
Monitoring Status (SMS) program, he was not given the stipulated  time  for
correction and was disenrolled while in compliance with the program.

In support of his request, applicant provided a DD Form 149,
DD Form 214, background statement, summary of events, DD  Form  785,  front
cover of AFOTS Handbook, Counseling summaries, MEO write-up,  congressional
letter, other SMS and disenrollment documentation, and reference letters.

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

____________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered Officer Training School (OTS) on 5 Jul 05.

On 9 Sep 05, the applicant was enrolled in the  SMS  program  for  Lack  of
Adaptability (LOA) for violating OTSMAN
36-2201, Para 7.8.7, which states, “OT’s who earn off-base  privileges  may
travel to all authorized off-base locations and will  pre-coordinate  their
travel plans and lodging arrangements with  their  Flight  Commanders  when
staying off base overnight.  Coordination will include a travel  itinerary,
appropriate lodging areas and phone numbers.”

On 12 Sep 05, after  reviewing  the  nature  of  the  applicant’s  lack  of
adaptability, the Flight Commander (FC) notified the applicant he would  be
recommending his disenrollment from the program.

On 16 Sep 05, the applicant’s FC recommended disenrollment from OTS for LOA
reasons in accordance with AUI 36-2315/24 TRS Sup 1, Para 8.1.2.1., failure
to maintain the military  standards  necessary  to  become  a  commissioned
officer.  The FC also recommended the DD Form 785, “Record of Disenrollment
From Officer Candidate-Type Training,” be marked in Section IV, “Evaluation
To Be Considered In the Future  For  Determining  Acceptability  For  Other
Officer Training” to reflect “Should Not Be Considered Without Weighing the
“Needs of the Service” Against the Reasons For Disenrollment” (item 3).

On 13 Oct 05, the applicant was discharged from OTS for twice disobeying  a
lawful order from his Flight Commander (FC)  and  knowingly  and  willfully
violating OTS rules when  exercising  off  base  privileges  without  prior
approval of his chain of command.

____________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFOATS/JA recommends denial of  the  applicant’s  request.   The  applicant
states he was not afforded the 2-4 weeks to improve as stated in 24 TRS  OI
36-2.   However,  paragraph  1.4.3.  states  that  the  intent  of  special
monitoring status (SMS) is not to serve as a long term monitoring  program.
In a 25 Apr 06 response, the Office of Legislative Liaison  explained  that
the above referenced instruction does not mean the trainee must have
2-4 weeks on SMS before any action  can  be  taken.   Furthermore,  it  was
explained that SMS does not override the authority  of  the  24th  Training
Squadron Commander to immediately  proceed  with  disenrollment  procedures
under Air University Instruction      36-2315, 24 TRS Supp 1, when evidence
warranting such action is uncovered.  Also, in accordance with  OTSMAN  36-
2001, para 7.8.7., “OTs who earn off-base  privileges  may  travel  to  all
authorized off-base locations and will pre-coordinate  their  travel  plans
and lodging arrangements with their Flight Commanders when staying off base
overnight.  Coordination  will  include  a  travel  itinerary,  appropriate
lodging areas and phone numbers.”  The applicant violated these  privileges
numerous times and therefore was disenrolled.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

____________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant’s response to the Air Force evaluation was submitted  through
his Congressman.  The Congressman  requested  that  the  AFBCMR  provide  a
response to points raised in the applicant’s rebuttal.  Key  points  raised
by the applicant follow:

        A.  He is requesting to “be returned to the status quo  ante  based
on the original commissioning date of 23 Sep 05.”

        B.  His chief concern when initiating the formal MEO complaint  was
the  arbitrary  elevation  of  punishment.   Separate  from  the  complaint
process, he was never given a complete witness statement  summary  via  the
freedom of information act.  All witness statements he received  have  been
altered and much of the information was omitted, a process he  believes  to
be less than fair.  He has no way of telling if the  information  submitted
was either favorable or unfavorable.  The statement, “no other cadets  felt
that the applicant was  singled  out  or  mistreated”  is  incorrect.   The
applicant states there are five witness statements  (nearly  28%  of  those
questioned) that subtly question his  treatment  during  the  disenrollment
process.  The applicant discusses comments from the  letters  to  reinforce
his point.

         C.  The  applicant  discusses  the  requirements  of  the  special
monitoring status (SMS) program.  He acknowledges that the  statement  that
SMS is not to serve as a long term monitoring program is correct and  notes
how the program is required to be conducted.  Regarding the statement  that
SMS status does  not  override  the  authority  of  the  Training  Squadron
Commander when evidence warranting such action is uncovered, the  applicant
states that all of the facts and evidence in his case were known  prior  to
his being enrolled into SMS.

The applicant asserts that the administration of SMS was violated.  It  was
violated not only because of time, but because he was  removed  when  there
was no further unsatisfactory performance.

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E.

____________________________________________________________

RESPONSE TO APPLICANT’S SUBMISSION (CONGRESSIONAL):

The Congressional Inquiry Division, Office of Legislative Liaison, provided
a response to the applicant’s Congressman regarding his rebuttal.

The response provided to the applicant’s Congressman is at Exhibit F.

____________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE:

The applicant provided a three-page written response to the reply  provided
to his Congressman.  The applicant’s response  is  tailored  to  match  the
corresponding paragraph in the Congressional response.

The applicant’s rebuttal  seeks  to  show  that  erroneous  information  is
contained in the Congressional response and that the administration of  his
Special Monitoring Status violated applicable policy. The applicant asserts
there are serious inconsistencies in the accounts given in his  case,  both
in previous responses and in the current response.

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit H.

____________________________________________________________

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 regarding the applicant’s contention that
his disenrollment from Officer Training School (OTS) violated OTS policy
related to the Special Monitoring Status (SMS) program.  The applicant’s
basic argument, as we understand it, is that once he was placed into SMS,
he was to be retained in the program for a period of two to four weeks,
absent any further unsatisfactory performance, to allow him time to improve
either his performance and/or behavior.  In light of the applicant’s
argument, we find two central issues:  (1) Whether placement into SMS, and
absent further unsatisfactory performance, serves as an automatic bar to
disenrollment from OTS and (2)  Whether the applicant’s performance merited
disenrollment.  Regarding the first issue, after reviewing the applicable
policy, the applicant’s arguments, and the several responses provided to
the applicant’s Congressman, we do not find the policy on SMS to be
conclusive as to the commander’s options regarding the applicant or any
similarly situated trainee.  While we may agree that making a notification
of intent to disenroll only a few days after notification of entry into
SMS, makes the SMS entry, on its face, appear somewhat disingenuous and is,
at the very least, an inappropriate execution of the SMS program, we do not
believe the actions constitute an outright violation of SMS policy.  This
brings us to the second issue, and perhaps crux of the matter, did the
applicant’s performance merit disenrollment.  Regarding this, we do not
find the applicant has provided sufficient evidence to overcome the
rationale put forth as the basis for his disenrollment by his commander.
The commander cites a lack of integrity and twice disobeying a lawful order
as the reasons for the disenrollment.  From reading many of the character
references submitted in support of the applicant, it appears he does
possess many of the qualities needed to become an officer.  However, in a
time when many junior officers already serving, with strong records of
performance, are being separated, it is understandable that those
individuals accorded the privilege of attending OTS have to meet the most
stringent of standards with almost no room for error.  Regrettably, it
appears the applicant failed to recognize in time the gravity of his
actions regarding off-base privileges.  Therefore, we recommend the
applicant’s requests be denied.

____________________________________________________________

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-2006-03110
in Executive Session on 7 March 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Cathlynn B. Novel, Panel Chair
      Ms. Dee R. Reardon, Member
      Mr. Jeffery R. Shelton, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 22 Jul 06, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFOATS/JA, dated 21 Nov 06.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Dec 06.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Congressman, dated 27 Dec 07,
                w/atchs.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/LL, dated 19 Jan 07.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 26 Jan 07.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, Applicant, undated.




                                   CATHLYNN B. NOVEL
                                   Panel Chair