RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-04022 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

He be allowed to serve in the enlisted force to complete his 
active duty service commitment (ADSC) for the cost of his 
advanced education at the United States Air Force Academy 
(USAFA). 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

The only error was his error in judgment, as he was not thinking 
rationally when he chose reimbursement for the cost of his 
advanced education rather than serving in the enlisted force. 

 

He was offered the option to serve a 2-year ADSC; however, he 
chose reimbursement rather than service. 

 

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a copy of his 
letter from the Superintendent, USAFA, undated. 

 

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, 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. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

USAFA/JA recommends denial. They note, in accordance with (IAW) 
Department of Defense Directive (DODD) 1332.23, Service Academy 
Disenrollment, para 4.1, that active duty is the primary means 
of reimbursement for education. The Superintendent, as the 
disenrollment authority, makes the final decision to disenroll 
the cadet and makes a recommendation as to 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. The cadet is afforded an opportunity to submit 
written matters along with the Superintendent’s recommendation 
on the collateral consequences of his disenrollment to be 
considered by the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council 
(SAFPC), the final authority concerning the collateral 
consequences. The recommendation of the Superintendent to 
either support enlisted service or to recommend the cadet 
monetarily reimburse the government is based upon the 
Superintendent’s assessment that the cadet either does or does 
not have the aptitude to successfully serve in an enlisted 
capacity. If it is ultimately determined by SAFPC that enlisted 
service is not the appropriate means for a cadet to pay back his 
ADSC, then monetary reimbursement is required instead. However, 
it is not a question of what the cadet desires, nor is it the 
cadet’s choice as the applicant implies. 

 

In the applicant’s case, the Superintendent decided to disenroll 
the applicant with a DD Form 785, Record of Disenrollment from 
Officer Candidate – Type Training, dated 26 May 2009, with a 
rating of “5 – definitely not recommended” for future officer 
training. Though the Superintendent recommended enlisted 
service, it is clear that SAFPC reviewed the applicant’s record 
and determined the applicant demonstrated by his misconduct that 
he did not have the aptitude to serve in an enlisted capacity to 
reimburse the government for the cost of his academy education. 
SAFPC ordered that he monetarily reimburse the government for 
the cost of his academy education. 

 

The complete USAFA/JA evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The applicant indicates that in his attempt to make his points 
brief, on the DD Form 149, he believes his points may not have 
been perceived by the Air Force office of primary responsibility 
(OPR) as he intended. He notes, during his resignation from the 
USAFA, on one of the forms, he selected that he wanted to pursue 
an educational delay for an opportunity to finish his education 
through the Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps (AFROTC); 
however, in that same section, he also selected that he was not 
willing to serve in the enlisted force. By doing this, he was 
showing at that time, if not selected for AFROTC, he would be 
willing to pay back the cost of education monetarily than to 
serve in the enlisted force. He realized that it was by no 
means his decision as to whether he would serve in the enlisted 
force, pay the cost of his education, or be granted an 
educational delay for AFROTC. He does believe that his 
preference may have had some effect on SAFPC’s decision. He 
understands that if he is not eligible for AFROTC as decided by 
SAFPC, he is not now asking that the decision be revisited, but 


does wish the record be corrected to show that he is more than 
willing to serve in the enlisted force. 

 

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides his rebuttal to 
the Air Force evaluation and a letter of recommendation from his 
civilian employment supervisor. 

 

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, 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. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of error or injustice. We took notice 
of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of 
the case; however, 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. The applicant’s 
comments in response to the Air Force evaluation are noted; 
however, we do not find they introduce matters not sufficiently 
covered in the evaluation. Therefore, in the absence of 
evidence to the contrary, we find no 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 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-2010-04022 in Executive Session on 2 August 2011, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 18 Oct 10, w/atch. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, USAFA/JA, dated 3 Jan 11, w/atchs. 


 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Feb 11. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, undated, w/atch. 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair