ADDENDUM TO 

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-03191 

 COUNSEL: 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

1. All recoupment efforts be permanently stopped. 

 

2. His debt as a result of his Air Force Reserve Officer 
Training Corps (AFROTC) disenrollment be cancelled. 

 

3. All negative references to his disenrollment be removed from 
his file. 

 

4. He receive a honorable discharge. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

On 16 Jun 11, a similar appeal was considered by the Board where 
the applicant requested reinstatement into the AFROTC program 
and that all recoupment action be stopped. The applicant’s 
records were corrected to reflect the following: 

 

 1. His DD Form 785, Record of Disenrollment from 
Officer Candidate - Type Training, dated 2 Apr 09, was removed 
from his record. 

 

 2. He was not disenrolled from AFROTC on 2 Apr 09, 
but was continued in that program; that his Source of Commission 
was (AFROTC), and any and all recoupment action associated with 
his disenrollment was stopped. 

 

 3. Appropriate actions were taken to effect his 
commission and promotion. 

 

For an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the 
applicant’s appeal, and, the rationale of the earlier decision 
by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings and directive, at 
Exhibit F. 

 

By letter, dated 7 May 12, counsel notes that the Board ordered 
various corrections to the record; however, between 23 Dec 
11 and 3 May 12, no action occurred with respect to the Board’s 
directive. Despite explicit orders by the AFBCMR to the 
contrary, DFAS initiated debt collection actions. The 
applicant's father was informed that it was the Air Force's 


interpretation of the AFBCMR decision that all relief was 
contingent upon his returning to active duty, 3 years after his 
disenrollment. 

 

Counsel states that several calls were placed to AFPC in attempt 
to learn the position of the Air Force on this matter. Counsel 
stated if it was the Air Force's position that the applicant be 
returned to active duty in order to benefit from the AFBCMR's 
recommendation; he requests the applicant's position be 
considered before the Air Force proceeds any further. Counsel 
states that the applicant does not wish to return to active duty 
and to do so would confound notions of fairness, logic and 
common sense. Counsel provides other reasons why the applicant 
should not be returned to active duty. Finally, he states that 
requiring the applicant to return to active duty in order to 
benefit from any relief resulting from the Board's finding that 
he suffered and error or injustice not only offends basic 
notions of common sense and fairness it arguably places the 
Board's actions in violation of federal law. 

 

On 15 May 12, the AFBCMR Executive Director clarified the 
Board’s directive and stated that the applicant was required to 
become a commissioned officer and serve on active duty to 
benefit from the relief directed by the Board. 

 

Counsel’s letter, dated 13 Jul 12, requests that all recoupment 
action be stopped; his debt be cancelled; all negative 
references to his disenrollment be removed from his file, and he 
be honorably discharged (Exhibit G). 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

 

1. After thoroughly reviewing the documentation submitted in 
support of his appeal, we do not believe further corrective 
action is warranted. In this respect, we note that in the 
applicant’s original application he requested, through counsel, 
reinstatement in the AFROTC program and for the debt he received 
due to his disenrollment be waived, alleging that he should 
never have been disenrolled and noting his desire to be a 
valuable asset to the Air Force as an officer. The Board 
determined the punishment (disenrollment) he received for 
violating the 72-hour reporting requirement of his AFROTC 
contract by deliberately withholding notification of his civil 
involvement was too harsh. In view of this, his record was 
corrected to show that he was not disenrolled from the AFROTC 
program but continued in the program and that action be taken to 
effect his commission and promotion, and that any recoupment 
actions associated with his disenrollment be stopped. Despite 
the clear and unambiguous language contained in the applicant’s 
original request, in a letter dated 7 May 2012, counsel 
requested the Board confirm that it was their position the 
applicant be required to return to active duty in order to 


benefit from the correction directed to his record. On 
15 May 12, counsel was advised that the Board’s directive 
required the applicant to become a commissioned officer and 
serve on active duty in order to benefit from the relief 
directed by the Board. Counsel now states the applicant does 
not desire commissioning on active duty and requests that 
recoupment actions be stopped, his debt be cancelled, any 
negative references to his disenrollment be removed from his 
file, and he be honorably discharged, contending that returning 
the applicant to active duty would undermine notions of common 
sense and fundamental fairness. However, as noted above, the 
Board’s directive clearly articulated the manner in which the 
applicant’s records were to be corrected, as requested by the 
applicant. Moreover, we find it abundantly clear from the 
applicant’s original request and contentions, that he desired 
the Board overturn his disenrollment in order to allow him to 
enter the Air Force as an officer. The applicant has benefited 
from the AFROTC program by receiving a 4-year degree at 
taxpayer’s expense, was successful in getting his disenrollment 
overturned and recoupment action ceased through the correction 
of records process and is now unwilling to return to active duty 
to fulfill his obligation. We find the facts and circumstances 
of this case in no way render him the victim of an error or an 
injustice. We find it incongruous the applicant would actually 
expect to benefit from the program and not expect to either 
repay his commitment through military service or repayment of 
the debt; especially considering the AFROTC contract he signed 
clearly indicated that if disenrolled, the decision to call him 
to active duty, pursue recoupment of monies expended on his 
education, or release him from his obligations would be within 
the sole discretion of the Commander, AFROTC. In the 
applicant’s case, there has been no showing the Commander, 
AFROTC abused his discretionary authority and therefore, he must 
either serve on active duty to fulfill his military service 
obligation or pay the debt incurred as a result of his 
disenrollment. In view of this and in the absence of evidence 
showing the applicant was treated differently from others 
similarly situated, we find no basis to recommend granting the 
relief sought. However, since the applicant no longer desires 
to become a commissioned officer and serve on active duty to 
fulfill his commitment, we would entertain his request to void 
the Board’s directive, which will return his records to its 
original state, i.e., disenrolled with recoupment. 

 

2. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not 
been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel 
will materially add to our understanding of the issue(s) 
involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably 
considered. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

 

 


THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 

 

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material 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-2010-03191 in Executive Session on 2 May 13, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit L. Record of Proceedings, undated, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit M. Letter, Counsel, dated 13 Jul 12. 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair