RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2009-00047
            INDEX CODE:  104.00
            COUNSEL:  NONE
            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Section IV of  his  DD  Form  785,  Record  of  Disenrollment  from  Officer
Candidate – Type Training, be changed from “DEFINITELY NOT  RECOMMENDED”  to
“RECOMMENDED AS AN AVERAGE CANDIDATE” or “SHOULD NOT BE  CONSIDERED  WITHOUT
WEIGHING  THE  ‘NEEDS  OF  THE  SERVICE’  AGAINST  THE  REASONS   FOR   THIS
DISENROLLMENT.”

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His  Cadet  Separation  Clearance/Referral  form   did   not   indicate   an
investigation.  At the time of his resignation, he was a  first  year  cadet
in good academic standing and a travelling member of the varsity water  polo
team.

He made the mistake of drinking while under age with two other  cadets.   He
and the other two cadets were later involved in a traffic accident.  He  was
thrown into the dashboard and his elbow was  broken.   The  consequences  of
his actions were severe as his elbow had to be surgically screwed  together;
ending his participation in athletics for at least two seasons.   He  deeply
disappointed his coach/mentor.  He was advised  by  his  squadron  commander
and others to  resign  or  he  would  be  thrown  out  with  a  dishonorable
discharge.  He elected resignation.

He now realizes resignation was the worst course of  action  he  could  have
chosen.  First, he did not face his discipline problem head on; second,  had
he decided to stay and face the consequences of his actions, he  would  more
than likely have been placed on conduct probation, but not discharged as  he
was advised.  He later learned of  other  cadets  in  similar  circumstances
that were not discharged.

He resigned his appointment because he was immature, scared  and  afraid  to
face  the  consequences  of  his  actions,  and  he   did   not   take   his
responsibilities as a cadet seriously.

Over the past two and one-half years, he has tried to put his life  back  on
track in order to prove he has what it takes to  be  officer  material.   He
returned to college and maintains a 3.5 grade point average in  a  technical
curriculum oriented toward engineering.  He is a varsity member of  a  water
polo team and works as a maintenance operator.

He is currently enrolled in the engineering department at the University  of
California and has completed  the  requirements  for  his  General  Aviation
License.

He will never get a second chance to be a graduate of the United States  Air
Force Academy (USAFA).  Since his discharge, he has tried to gain the  level
of maturity he did not have at the Academy.  He is  focused  and  takes  his
responsibilities and obligations seriously and  will  not  repeat  his  past
mistakes.  Serving in the Air Force has always  been  his  ambition  and  he
would like to seek a commission.

In  support  of  the  application,  the  applicant  submits  his  record  of
disenrollment, his  submittal  of  resignation,  and  his  cadet  separation
clearance and referral form.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The relevant facts  pertaining  to  this  application,  extracted  from  the
applicant’s military records, are contained in the letter  prepared  by  the
appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ USAFA/JA recommends denial.  JA states the applicant was a  Cadet  Fourth
Class involved in a car accident with two fellow cadets that resulted  after
the driver and passengers in the car had consumed alcohol  provided  by  the
applicant.

On 16 May 06, the applicant was served with a Letter of Reprimand (LOR)  for
being in possession of a false identification card, consuming alcohol  under
the legal age of twenty-one years,  and  providing  alcohol  to  individuals
under the legal age of twenty-one  years.   His  commander  was  pursing  an
Article 15 for the aforementioned violations, in addition to  initiating  an
honor code violation investigation, for his being in possession of  a  false
identification card.

On 11 May 06, the applicant chose to  voluntarily  resign  in  lieu  of  his
commander’s  proposed  action  and  submitted  his   voluntary   resignation
paperwork.  On 12 May 06, he was served with a LOR.   He  was  provided  the
opportunity to respond to the LOR.  Both the Commandant  and  Superintendent
concurred  with  the  Air  Officer  Commanding’s  (AOC)  recommendation   of
granting applicant’s resignation in lieu of  an  Article  15  and  with  the
AOC’s recommendation,  to  assign  the  applicant  a  “5  –  Definitely  Not
Recommended (for future officer training)” on the DD  Form  785.   The  form
was accomplished on 12  Jun  06  and  he  was  disenrolled  from  the  USAFA
effective the same date.

JA notes the applicant received numerous lessons and  training  sessions  on
the honor code at USAFA to include  discussions  and  case  studies  on  how
possession of a false identification card is deemed to be  lying  under  the
honor code.  JA opines; therefore,  the  applicant  should  have  known  the
honor system would be involved due to his being in  possession  of  a  false
identification card.  JA states a military member is  not  entitled  to  any
notice that he or she is under investigation.  He would be  made  aware  and
put on notice once the initiator takes the steps to go to  a  clarification.
JA notes the applicant’s resignation was submitted before  his  AOC  arrived
at this stage of the honor violation system.

JA states the DD Form 785 is  used  to  record  information  on  individuals
disenrolled  from  an  officer  candidate  training  program.   Section  III
elaborates on the factors that led to the  officer  trainee’s  disenrollment
and avoids generalities so that an  agency  considering  an  individual  for
reenrollment  can  objectively  assess  the   individual’s   potential   for
commissioned officer status.

JA states the DD Form 785 correctly  states  the  circumstances  surrounding
the applicant’s disenrollment.  Section IV remarks are continuation  of  the
comments in  section  III  and  clearly  support  the  decision  to  make  a
recommendation of “5.”

The complete JA evaluation is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on  1  May
09, for review and comment within 30 days.  As of  this  date,  this  office
has received no response (Exhibit C).

_________________________________________________________________

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.  Evidence  has  not  been  presented  which
would lead us  to  believe  that  the  applicant’s  disenrollment  from  the
academy and the final disposition of his case were in error or  contrary  to
the governing Air Force regulations, which implement  and  law.   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.  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 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 this application in  Executive
Session on 26 August 2009, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Wayne R. Gracie, Panel Chair
      Ms. Lea Gallogly, Member
      Mr. Mark J. Novitski, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 18 Dec 08, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, HQ USAFA/JA, dated 13 Feb 09.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 May 09.




                                   WAYNE R. GRACIE
                                   Panel Chair