Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02612
Original file (BC-2011-02612.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02612 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His numerical rating in Section IV of DD Form 785, Record of 
Disenrollment from Officer Candidate – Type Training, be changed 
from “5” (Definitely Not Recommended) to “3” (Should Not Be 
Considered Without Weighing the Needs of the Service Against the 
Reasons for Disenrollment). 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He has matured since leaving the Air Force Academy. He has 
experienced numerous leadership roles and now believes he has 
what it takes to become an Air Force officer. Although it took 
him making mistakes, he now realizes the values and morals that 
true Air Force Academy cadets develop and will continue with his 
motivation in all future endeavors. He plans to use the lessons 
and experiences he learned to one day become not only an officer 
of character, but also a person with true integrity, 
selflessness, and perseverance to do the best that he can. If 
the rating is changed from “5” to a “3”, he knows he would gain 
more exposure to leadership in the military that will help him to 
be molded into an officer that he knows he can be. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides a copy of his 
DD Form 785. 

 

His complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

Information provided by HQ USAFA/JA shows that the applicant 
committed numerous cadet infractions, to include being involved 
in two significant alcohol incidents. On 24 Aug 10, the 
Commandant of Cadets directed that the applicant’s pattern of 
misconduct be reviewed by a Hearing Officer. The Hearing Officer 
found by a preponderance of evidence that he (1) failed to 
exercise leadership responsibilities in the presence of underage 
drinkers, (2) consumed alcohol while under the legal age for 
consumption, (3) violated a no contact order, (4) was smoking on 


the terrazzo at the United States Air Force Academy (USAFA), 
(5) left the cadet area without authorization, and (6) lied about 
his whereabouts. 

 

The applicant’s commander recommended he be disenrolled from the 
Academy, discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) 
discharge, and assigned a “5” on his DD Form 785. 

 

Additional relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the 
Air Force. Accordingly, there is no need to recite these facts 
in this Record of Proceedings. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

HQ USAFA/JA recommends denial. JA states the applicant seems to 
believe that a simple change of a numerical rating on his DD Form 
785 will automatically make him eligible to return to the Academy 
or enter into another commissioning program. However, JA sees 
his general characterization discharge as the bigger hurdle to 
overcome. While JA does not doubt the applicant has matured, 
they stand by the numerical rating as it depicts an accurate 
picture of the applicant’s time in the military. 

 

The rating of “5” is a means to differentiate the applicant’s 
case from the honor code violation disenrollment and/or the 
physical fitness/academic deficient cases. Specifically, where 
former cadets do not engage in illegal behavior or significant 
cadet level misconduct yet still end up receiving a rating of “3” 
on their DD Form 785 because of their inability to maintain 
minimum standards. 

 

The HQ USAFA/JA complete evaluation is at Exhibit B. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

A copy of the Air Force evaluation were forwarded to the 
applicant on 2 Sep 11 for review and comment within 30 days. As 
of this date, this office has received no response. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

 

1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 
law or regulations. 

 

2. The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the 
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file. 


 

3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of error or injustice. After a 
thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant's 
submission, we are not persuaded that a change in his officer 
candidate rating is required. Neither does the record reveal nor 
has the applicant provided evidence that would lead us to believe 
his officer candidate rating is not an accurate picture of his 
time in the military. In view of the above and absent evidence to 
the contrary, we agree with the assessment of the Air Force office 
of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale expressed as the 
basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain 
his burden that he has suffered either an error or an injustice. 
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 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 AFBCMR Docket Number 
BC-2011-02612 in Executive Session on 10 Nov 11, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 11 Jul 11, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Letter, HQ USAFA/JA, dated 9 Aug 11. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Sep 11. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair 

 



Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03587

    Original file (BC-2005-03587.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    However, they do recommend the applicant’s record be corrected to show that the time of his disenrollment he was on conduct probation not academic probation. HQ USAFA/JA opines the applicant was not prejudiced by the error and that the applicant was disenrolled for his Wing Honor Code violations The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant’s counsel states in his response that...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-01309

    Original file (BC-2010-01309.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    On the USAFA IMT Form 34, Cadet Separation Clearance/Referral, his AOC and Group AOC recommended a DD Form 785 rating of “2.” On 8 March 2010, the USAFA Superintendant, after having considered the DD Form 785 rating recommendations from the Cadet Wing chain-of-command, assigned a DD Form 785 rating of “3.” The remaining relevant facts extracted from the applicant’s available military records, are contained in the advisory opinion from the Air Force office of primary responsibility at Exhibit...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 01492

    Original file (BC 2013 01492.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-01492 COUNSEL: HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: USAFA/A1A recommends denying the applicant’s request to change his RE code. The applicant’s attorney states the applicant did not have the right to counsel at his...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-00047

    Original file (BC-2009-00047.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    As of this date, this office has received no response (Exhibit C). _________________________________________________________________ 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. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00294

    Original file (BC-2013-00294.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The procedures for completing a DD Form 785 are contained in AFI36- 2012, Record of Disenrollment from Officer Candidate-Type Training – DD Form785, and are quite specific; however, his DD Form 785 contains falsehoods and is written in a highly inflammatory and prejudicial manner. An MPA of 2.73 is impossible for a cadet that would have already been on aptitude and conduct probation prior to being found guilty of dating a Cadet 4th Class (C4C) and maintaining an off base residence. When...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00747

    Original file (BC-2004-00747.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-00747 INDEX CODE: 104.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Record of Disenrollment from Officer Candidate - Type Training (DD Form 785) Section III be changed as follows: 1. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records,...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02032

    Original file (BC 2014 02032.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Article 15 action does not mean that a cadet must be disenrolled. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: USAFA/JA recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. While his enlisted service is commendable, it does not provide a basis for reinstatement to USAFA.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03266

    Original file (BC 2013 03266.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is a former cadet of the United States Air Force Academy (USAFA). The applicant had the right to counsel throughout the LOR, ARC, and Hearing Officer processes. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that the DD Form 785, Record of...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01674

    Original file (BC-2006-01674.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-01674 INDEX CODE: 104.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 4 Dec 07 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The DD Form 785, Record of Disenrollment From Officer Candidate-Type Training, dated 29 Jun 05, be amended by changing the words in Section III to reflect “Cadet P voluntarily resigned while...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00404

    Original file (BC-2012-00404.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    JA states the applicant’s DD Form 785 correctly states the circumstances surrounding his situation at the time of his disenrollment from the USAFA. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: He resigned because his Squadron Air Officer Commanding (AOC) and Academy Military Trainer (AMT) repeatedly told him that if he tried to stay and fight the charges, he would be punished with a “5” rating, “Definitely Not Recommended,”...