RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-02457
            INDEX CODE:  113.00, 128.00

      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: NO


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  6 FEB 2009


___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His active duty service commitment be waived and he be  allowed  to
monetarily reimburse the government for the  cost  of  his  US  Air
Force Academy (USAFA) education.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was treated unfairly and unprofessionally throughout the process
of being dis-enrolled from the USAFA, denied a slot into Air  Force
Reserve Officer Training Corps (AFROTC), (which he understood to be
guaranteed upon his dismissal), and in trying to find  out  answers
and options to what steps to take in continuing his life.

Applicant made  some  mistakes  at  the  USAFA  which  led  to  his
dismissal; has worked hard since leaving the USAFA and is now ready
to move on with his life.  He has been accepted to  the  University
of Texas for Fall  2007  and  plans  on  attending  to  finish  his
education.  Applicant has made many positive changes in  his  life,
has a wonderful job, lives close to his family, and wishes  to  pay
back the government as opposed to serving on active duty.

In support of his appeal, applicant submitted a personal statement;
extracts from his USAFA record, and a copy of  his  letter  to  his
member of congress.

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

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant became a cadet at the  USAF  Academy  on  26  June  2003.
On 26 October 2006, a Cadet Sanctions Recommendation  Panel  (CRSP)
was convened to consider six allegations that he had  violated  the
Cadet Wing Honor Code.  The allegations included six allegations of
lying.  Applicant admitted to the violations of the Honor Code, and
therefore, the CSRP was convened as the only recommendation  to  be
made by the members of the CSRP  concerned  the  sanction  for  the
applicant’s Honor Code violations.  The sanction recommended by the
CSRP was disenrollment from the Academy.  The  Superintendent,  the
disenrollment authority, agreed with the CSRP and  disenrolled  the
applicant, ordered him to reimburse the government for the costs of
his Academy education by serving three  years  active  duty  in  an
enlisted capacity, but also granted him  an  educational  delay  to
seek a commissioning source  other  than  the  Academy.   Prior  to
disenrolling from the Academy, the applicant signed an "Educational
Delay Statement of Understanding."  Essentially, the  statement  of
understanding acknowledges that his failure to secure  approval  or
his failure to complete the application actions in the time allowed
(as set forth in the document) would result in his  immediate  call
to active duty consistent with  his  obligation  to  reimburse  the
government for the costs of his  Academy  education.   Because  the
applicant was in his  senior  year  at  the  Academy  when  he  was
disenrolled, he owed an active duty service  commitment  (ADSC)  of
three years enlisted active duty,  to  the  Air  Force.   As  noted
above, the Superintendent  determined  that  the  applicant  should
reimburse the government for the costs of the Academy education  by
serving in an enlisted active duty status for three years,  subject
to the educational delay.  The applicant accepted the terms of  the
educational delay, acknowledged that it was his  responsibility  to
secure enrollment and a contract in an AFROTC-sanctioned program by
the agreed  upon  date,  but  was  subsequently  unable  to  secure
enrollment and a contract in an  AFROTC-sanctioned  program  by  15
July 2007, the agreed upon date.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ USAFA/JA  reviewed  this  application  and  recommended  denial,
stating, in part, Title 10 USC Section 2005  (a)  states  that  the
Secretary concerned may require, as a condition  to  the  Secretary
providing advance education assistance to  any  person,  that  such
person enter into a written agreement with the Secretary  concerned
under the terms of which such person shall agree—

            (1)  to complete the educational requirements specified
in the agreement and to serve on active duty for a period specified
in the agreement;

             (2)  that  if  such  person  fails  to  complete   the
education requirements specified in the agreement, such person will
serve on active duty for a period specified in the agreement…

In Department of Defense Directive (DODD) 1332.23, paragraph 4,  it
is DoD policy that:

            4.1  Active  duty  service  is  the  primary  means  of
reimbursement for education.

             4.2  Cadets  and  midshipmen  disenrolling  or   those
disenrolled from a Service academy  normally  shall  be  called  to
active duty in enlisted status…

A paralegal in USAFA/JACD, responded to the applicant’s  allegation
of unprofessional conduct during his disenrollment.  In short,  all
of the information she provided to the applicant and/or his  mother
was accurate and was provided in a professional manner.

The Superintendent, as the disenrollment authority, makes the final
decision to disenroll the  cadet  and  decides  whether  the  cadet
should be called to serve in an enlisted capacity to reimburse  the
government  or  if  the  cadet  should  reimburse  the   government
monetarily.  In the event the cadet  appeals  the  Superintendent’s
decision on the collateral consequences of  his  disenrollment,  he
may appeal to the Secretary of the Air Force, the  final  authority
concerning  the  collateral  consequences.   The  decision  of  the
Superintendent to require the cadet  to  monetarily  reimburse  the
government should be based upon the Superintendent’s decision  that
the  disenrollment  resulted  from  misconduct,  as  set  forth  in
Title 10 USC Section 2005 (a) (3).

In the case, the Superintendent decided that the applicant would be
called to active duty in an  enlisted  capacity  to  reimburse  the
government,  but  graciously  gave  the  applicant  the  additional
opportunity to delay his active duty service in order  for  him  to
obtain his commission through an alternative commissioning program.
 The applicant agreed to the terms of the  Superintendent’s  offer.
The applicant was provided every opportunity to successfully obtain
entrance into the alternative commissioning program.   Because  the
applicant failed to secure a position in such a program, he  should
not be relieved of his obligations under the law  and  pursuant  to
his agreement with the Superintendent.

HQ USAFA/JA’s complete evaluation, with attachments, is at  Exhibit
C.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In the  applicant’s  response  to  the  evaluation,  he  noted  his
understanding that the primary means for  reimbursement  is  active
duty service, but it leaves room for him to believe that  there  is
some sort of option as to the terms of reimbursement.  His goal  is
not to escape active duty service at all; however, he was told that
requesting monetary reimbursement as opposed to active duty service
was possible through the AFBCMR process.

Further, he noted, the statement from the paralegal  is  completely
false, as she used that exact term to his face when telling him  of
his outlook for entrance into ROTC.

Applicant’s 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.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to  demonstrate
the existence of error or  injustice.   We  found  no  evidence  to
sufficiently  convince  us  that  the  Superintendent  abused   his
authority when  he  decided  the  applicant  should  reimburse  the
government for the cost of the Academy education by serving  in  an
enlisted active duty status for three years.  Applicant  understood
and agreed to serve on active  duty,  subject  to  the  educational
delay, to secure enrollment and a contract in an  AFROTC-sanctioned
program, by the agreed upon date of 15 July 2007.  While we do  not
condone the misconduct which subsequently led  to  the  applicant’s
disenrollment, we believe he fully intended to finish  his  Academy
education and serve in the Air Force  as  a  commissioned  officer.
Consequently, we also believe that had the applicant  not  felt  he
was in a good position to be enrolled  in  an  AFROTC  program,  he
would have appealed the Superintendent’s decision to reimburse  the
government by serving in an enlisted capacity for three years.   We
cannot    conclusively    determine    whether    appealing     the
Superintendent’s decision would have resulted  in  the  applicant’s
desired alterative; nonetheless, based on the evidence  before  us,
we believe it would be proper and fitting to allow the applicant to
monetarily reimburse the government for his advanced  education  at
the USAFA, rather than requiring him to serve on  active  duty  for
three years.  Such action would not only be in the best interest of
the Air Force, but the applicant as well.  We  note  the  applicant
has been accepted to a university and  has  started  preparing  for
life as a civilian.   However,  we  do  not  believe  the  evidence
supports  a  decision  that  the  applicant   should   be   treated
differently than other cadets who are disenrolled after their third
year at the Academy and who do not  perform  the  requisite  active
duty  service  in  enlisted  status.   Rather,   we   believe   the
appropriate course of action in this case would be to allow him  to
reimburse the government monetarily, rather than serving in the Air
Force in an enlisted  capacity  for  three  years.   Therefore,  we
recommend  the  applicant’s  record  be  corrected  to  the  extent
indicated below.

___________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the  Air  Force
relating   to   APPLICANT,   be   corrected   to   show   that   on
9 February 2007, competent authority determined that he be required
to monetarily reimburse the government for the total  cost  of  his
advanced education at  the  United  States  Air  Force  Academy  in
accordance with Title 10, United States Code, Section 2005 (a) (3);
rather than granted an educational delay, and called to active duty
in an enlisted capacity for a period of three (3) years.

___________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket  Number
BC-2007-02457 in Executive Session on 10 October  2007,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. James W. Russell III, Panel Chair
      Ms Janet I. Hassan, Member
      Mr. Clarence R. Anderegg, Member

All members voted to correct  the  records,  as  recommended.   The
following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 Jul 07, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ USAFA/JA, dated 23 Aug 07, w/atchs.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 31 Aug 07.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 21 Sep 07, w/atchs.




                                   JAMES W. RUSSELL III
                                   Panel Chair



AFBCMR BC-2007-02457




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 XXXXXXX, XXXXXXX, be corrected to show that on
9 February 2007, competent authority determined that he be required
to monetarily reimburse the government for the total cost of his
advanced education at the United States Air Force Academy in
accordance with Title 10, United States Code, Section 2005 (a) (3);
rather than granted an educational delay, and called to active duty
in an enlisted capacity for a period of three (3) years.







            JOE G. LINEBERGER
            Director
            Air Force Review Boards Agency