RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-04086
            INDEX CODE:  110.03
            COUNSEL:  ALISON L. RUTTENBERG
            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1. She be reinstated into the United States Air Force Academy  (USAFA),  she
be permitted to finish her last semester  at  the  USAFA,  and  receive  her
commission.

2. The negative recommendation  to  permit  her  to  enroll  in  AFROTC  and
fulfill her service commitment by receiving her  commission  via  AFROTC  be
reversed.

3. In the alternative the recoupment order be vacated and she  be  permitted
to discharge her obligation by serving on active duty.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Her disenrollment from the USAFA was arbitrary, capricious and  unjust.   It
is clear that her record as a whole  did  not  justify  disenrollment.   The
bare allegations of misconduct and  unfitness  to  be  an  officer  are  not
supported by actual facts in the record, and therefore, the  conclusions  of
the  Military  Review  Committee  (MRC)  were  arbitrary   and   capricious.
Consequently, it was unjust and a denial of administrative due  process  for
the Secretary of the Air Force to endorse the MRC's findings and  order  her
disenrollment.

It is unjust to require her to pay recoupment, and she should be  given  the
opportunity to discharge her obligation by serving on  active  duty.   On  5
May 2006, she was ordered to reimburse the United States in  the  amount  of
$139,183 for the cost of her education pursuant to 10 USC Section 2005.   It
was unjust to disenroll her  from  the  USAFA  and  thus  prevent  her  from
fulfilling  her  active  duty  service  commitment.   None  of  the  alleged
"misconduct" could in any way disqualify her for enlisted service.  She  has
no criminal  record,  none  of  her  alleged  defalcations  even  amount  to
allegations of  criminal,  immoral  or  dishonest  conduct,  and  would  not
require a waiver to enlist.  Recently, the military has  had  to  resort  to
giving  convicted  felons  waivers  in  order  to  meet  enlistment  quotas.
Therefore, it defies logic that the Air Force would be willing to  ignore  a
ready, willing  and  able  resource  such  as  her.   She  stands  ready  to
discharge her active duty service obligation with enlisted service  in  lieu
of repaying the cost of her education.

In support of her request, the applicant provided a personal  statement  and
documentation associated with her disenrollment from the USAFA.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 27 June 2002, the applicant entered the USAFA.

On 4 October 2005, the applicant was notified that in  accordance  with  AFI
36-2020, Disenrollment of United  States  Air  Force  Academy  Cadets,  that
34 TRW/CC (Commandant of Cadets) had begun  action  to  discharge  her  from
cadet status.

On 17 October 2005 a hearing was held in accordance  with  AFI  36-2020,  to
consider the applicant's record for military misconduct.  The applicant  had
received eight administrative actions during her three years at  the  USAFA,
including a Letter of Counseling  (LOC)  for  exceeding  Academy  limits;  a
Letter of Admonition  (LOA)  for  the  unauthorized  use  of  Hap's  bar;  a
Memorandum For Record (MFR) for being late to a mandatory formation; an  MFR
documenting a meeting involving the  applicant  and  MSgt  J,  CS-10/AMT;  a
Letter  of  Reprimand  (LOR)  for  wearing  inappropriate   clothing   while
counseling a fourth-classman; an LOA for improperly utilizing the  chain  of
command; an MFR for continued disrespect toward  MSgt  J,  and  an  LOA  for
insubordinate conduct towards a noncommissioned  officer.   After  the  MRC,
the applicant also received two additional administrative  actions:  an  LOC
for dereliction of duty for violating the Cadet Sight  Picture  and  an  LOA
for violating the Cadet Sight Picture by wearing civilian  clothing  in  the
squadron area.

The applicant was provided with the opportunity to respond to both of  these
actions.  She responded to the LOA by letter dated  1  December  2005.   The
applicant was present for and participated fully at the  MRC  hearing.   The
members of the MRC recommended  the  applicant  be  disenrolled.   Both  the
Commandant and Superintendent concurred and  recommended  to  the  Secretary
that the applicant be disenrolled and ordered to  reimburse  the  government
for the cost of her academy education.  The  applicant  disagreed  with  the
recommendation of the superintendent and appealed  the  recommendation.   In
her appeal, the applicant also requested an  "educational  delay"  to  allow
her to obtain her commission through AFROTC.

On  6  June  2006,  the  Secretary  concurred  with   the   Superintendent's
recommendation, denied the educational delay, and ordered the  applicant  to
reimburse the government for the cost of her academy education.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ  USAFA/JA  recommends  denial.   JA  states  the   applicant   had   been
disciplined for numerous disciplinary  infractions.   The  decision  of  the
members of the MRC is clearly set forth in paragraph  10  of  the  Executive
Summary of the MRC.  The members were appalled by the  applicant's  lack  of
understanding of the chain of command, her use of the chain of  command  for
her own gain, and her open hostility toward authority.   She  had  been  the
recipient of numerous counselings and probations, but never seemed  to  "get
it."  She often improved her behavior toward others, only  to  regress  into
her previous behavior within a short time.  The  decision  of  the  MRC  was
based upon the applicant's entire cadet  record.   The  members  noted  that
they  believed  the  applicant  would  not  benefit  from   any   additional
rehabilitative efforts.  The record of the MRC indicates that  the  decision
of the MRC was neither arbitrary nor capricious.

The Superintendent's decision to recommend  that  the  applicant  monetarily
reimburse the government for the costs  of  her  Academy  education,  rather
than the preferred method of  requiring  a  disenrolled  cadet  to  serve  a
specified period of time in an active-duty enlisted status, is based on  all
of the facts and circumstances available to him at  the  time  he  forwarded
his  recommendation  to  the  Secretary.   In  this  case,  the  applicant's
behavior  that  resulted  in  her  disenrollment  was   determined   to   be
"misconduct."  The Superintendent considered the nature  of  the  misconduct
(disrespect toward a noncommissioned officer, for  example)  and  determined
that  he  would  not  force  the  applicant's  problems  that  were  already
addressed by the Academy upon the Air Force by essentially transferring  the
problem  to  the  enlisted  side  of  the  house.   The   essence   of   the
Superintendent's decision was that the  applicant  lacked  the  aptitude  to
serve successfully  in  the  Air  Force.   The  Secretary  agreed  with  the
Superintendent.

This case has already been  processed  through  the  Secretary  of  the  Air
Force.  The Secretary denied the  applicant's  request  for  an  educational
delay and ordered that the applicant  monetarily  reimburse  the  government
for the costs of the applicant's Academy education.  The Academy  is  unable
to provide  any  relief  with  regard  to  the  applicant's  request  to  be
reinstated and allowed to finish her degree  and  be  commissioned,  or  the
applicant's request  to  be  allowed  to  repay  the  cost  of  her  academy
education by serving on active duty in an  enlisted  capacity  for  a  three
year period.  Only the Secretary may  provide  the  relief  requested.   The
applicant was afforded all appropriate due  process  rights  throughout  the
consideration of her case.  The findings and recommendations of the  members
of the MRC were supported by the evidence presented.

The complete JA evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the evaluation  and  states  the  advisory  fails  to
address the standard of review by the AFBCMR and the  statutory  purpose  of
the AFBCMR when it  dismissively  concludes  that  her  petition  should  be
denied because she was  already  given  all  the  due  process  required  by
regulation and the Secretary of the Air Force.   The  statutory  purpose  of
the AFBCMR is to give current and former  service  members  the  ability  to
petition the Secretary of the Air Force to correct injustices and  have  his
or her petition reviewed by an independent panel (the AFBCMR).   The  AFBCMR
is authorized to reverse any adverse  personnel  decision  that  is  unjust.
Therefore, even though  the  USAFA  might  be  able  to  conclude  that  her
disenrollment  did  not  violate  Air  Force  regulations,  the  AFBCMR  may
override the previous decision to disenroll if the disenrollment is  unjust.
 The advisory  completely  ignores  this  fact  and  does  not  address  her
argument that her disenrollment was unjust, or in  the  alternative,  denial
of her request to discharge her educational  obligation  through  enlistment
service rather than recoupment was unjust.

The applicant's complete response is at Exhibit E.

On 30  May  2008,  the  applicant  was  provided  a  copy  of  the  SAF/MRBP
Memorandum dated 5 June 2006 pertaining to her  case  and  was  provided  30
days to provide additional  comment,  if  desired.   As  of  this  date,  no
response has been received by this office.

On 15 August 2008, counsel for the applicant was  provided  a  copy  of  the
SAF/MRBP Memorandum dated 5  June  2006  pertaining  to  her  case  and  was
provided 30 days to provide additional comment,  if  desired.   As  of  this
date, no response has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

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  an  error  or  injustice.   After  carefully  reviewing   the
applicant’s submission and the available evidence  of  record,  we  find  no
evidence of error or injustice with respect to her disenrollment  action  or
the determination that she should not be allowed to serve  on  active  duty.
In this regard, it appears that responsible  officials  applied  appropriate
standards in the conduct of the Military Review  Council  (MRC)  proceedings
and disenrollment process, and we  do  not  find  persuasive  evidence  that
pertinent regulations were violated or that the applicant was  not  afforded
all  the  rights  to  which  entitled  at   the   time   of   disenrollment.
Accordingly, 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 she has not been the victim of an  error  or  injustice.
Therefore,  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 the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate  the
existence of an error or injustice; the application  was  denied  without  a
personal appearance; and 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-2007-
04086 in Executive Session on 24 July 2008 and 16 September 2008, under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Ms. B J White-Olson, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member
                 Mr. Garry G. Sauner, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 7 October 2007, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Record.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, USAFA/JA, dated 15 January 2008.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 February 2008.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, Counsel, dated 1 March 2008.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 30 May 2008.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 15 August 2008.





                 B J WHITE-OLSON
                 Panel Chair