RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-03934 

 

 COUNSEL: 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His records be corrected to reflect that he was not disenrolled 
from the United States Air Force Academy (USAFA), and that he be 
reinstated as a member of the Cadet Wing. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

1. His honor violations were mischaracterized as highly 
egregious when compared to those of other cadets, and contained 
other misleading statements when forwarded to the USAFA Chain of 
Command. Another cadet was accused of cheating on the computer 
homework by stealing the homework and then lying about it; 
however, the other cadet’s behavior was not deemed as 
“egregious,” and he was retained. In fact, the applicant simply 
failed to document assistance in completing his homework 
assignment. 

 

2. He was subjected to multiple due process violations. The 
alleged discrepancies are: a) he was improperly advised on his 
right to counsel, b) the violation the applicant was found 
guilty of was different than the original honor violation cited 
in the letter of notification, c) the violation was 
mischaracterized by the Cadet Sanctions Recommendation Panel 
(CSRP) making it appear more egregious to the USAFA chain of 
command, d) the CSRP failed to fully address the 
"forthrightness" factor, saying it was not significant, e) the 
CSRP failed to consider "Understanding of the Code" then 
recommended disenrollment because of the earlier honor violation 
- a factor that is not listed as one to be considered during the 
sanction recommendation process, and f) the applicant was 
unfairly denied access to the CSRP recommendation with which to 
prepare his appeal. 

 

3. He was denied the opportunity to complete his Honor 
Probation associated with his first Honor Code violation when 
his second Honor Code violation came to light. Had he been 
allowed to complete Honor Probation, he would have demonstrated 
his worthiness for retention. 

 


4. Insufficient weight was given to the opinions and inputs of 
cadet leadership, Air Officer Commanding (AOC), professors, and 
the applicant’s peers, many of whom wrote character references 
on his behalf. Too much weight was given to the Group Honor 
Chair’s (GHC) input when her logic and conclusions appeared to 
be suspect. She did not address how the applicant was doing 
under his honor probation, which was underway when she wrote her 
recommendation; nor did she address the affirmative 
recommendations made by his AOC, who recommended he be allowed 
to complete his honor code probation. 

 

5. By amendment, the applicant contends the CSRP Chair was 
clearly biased against him since she served as the GHC and the 
CSRP Chair for his earlier minor Honor Code violation. 

 

6. The Superintendent abdicated his authority by not referring 
the matter to the Academy Board, instead choosing to rely on the 
inputs he received through the Honor System process. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides an expanded 
statement, a brief of counsel, a supporting statement from his 
area defense counsel, and copies of excerpts of his military 
personnel records, numerous character statements, and the Air 
Force Cadet Wing Honor Code Reference Handbook. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant attended USAFA in cadet status beginning on 
24 Jun 10 as a member of the Class of 2014. 

 

On 27 Aug 10, he admitted to a CSRP that he violated the honor 
code by cheating on 15 Aug 10. His violation was that he 
indicated he made only two mistakes on a practice knowledge test 
by turning in a correction sheet showing only two errors, while 
he had actually made six mistakes. 

 

On 19 Sep 10, after considering the CSRP recommendation to place 
the applicant on Honor Probation, the Commandant of Cadets 
concurred. 

 

On 1 Oct 10, the Vice Commandant of Cadets notified the 
applicant he was placing him on a six-month Honor Probation 
Program in accordance with the Commandant’s 19 Sep 10 decision 
related to the applicant’s first honor code violation. 

 

On 19 Oct 10, the applicant was notified he was suspected of 
violating the USAFA Honor Code again by cheating, on or about 
27 Sep 10, with the intent to receive undeserved credit when he 
copied and pasted algorithms from a fellow cadet into a homework 


assignment in violation of the Computer Science Department’s 
help policy and which he also failed to document in his 
documentation statement. The applicant acknowledged receipt the 
same date, waived his right to counsel and to remain silent, 
admitted he committed the noted violation of the Honor Code, and 
requested his case be referred to a CSRP. 

 

On 2 Nov 10, the applicant admitted his second honor code 
violation to a CSRP, which subsequently recommended his 
disenrollment from the USAFA. On 15 Nov 10, the case was found 
to be legally sufficient. 

 

On 7 Dec 10, after considering all the facts and circumstances 
of the case, the Commandant of Cadets notified the applicant he 
was recommending him for disenrollment and forwarded said 
recommendation to the USAFA Superintendent for a final 
determination. 

 

On 8 Dec 10, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the action, 
indicated he had consulted with counsel, and elected to submit 
an appeal to the Superintendent. 

 

On 17 Feb 11, the case file was found to be legally sufficient 
and on 26 Feb 11, the USAFA Superintendent directed the 
applicant be disenrolled. 

 

On 4 Mar 11, the applicant was disenrolled from USAFA and 
discharged as a cadet. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The Commandant of Cadets (USAFA/CW) recommends denial indicating 
there is no evidence of an error or injustice. The applicant 
claims he was treated unjustly because the Cadet Honor Committee 
Leadership treated his violations as egregious when they were 
not, and failed to acknowledge that he was forthright in taking 
responsibility for his behavior. The USAFA Honor process was 
followed correctly as the procedural guidance from The Cadet 
Wing Honor Code Reference Handbook Volume II, Oct 09, paragraph 
5.1.1 was thoroughly adhered to. Per this guidance, when making 
recommendations, four factors must be addressed: time under the 
code; egregiousness of the offense; forthrightness; and, type of 
report (i.e., self-report/admit/deny). All were appropriately 
considered. The CSRP found the applicant’s act and intent was 
egregious and recommended disenrollment. The CSRP Chair’s 
sanction recommendation stated: “Egregiousness in this case is 
significant (in) that he was willing to knowingly cheat on an 
assignment for a class that made the policy very clear on 
outside help and documentation. Not only did he copy the 
program but he made a false statement that he received no help 
on the program in his documentation. His action is highly 
egregious.” His Cadet Squadron Commander added: “The situation 


is compounded by the fact he had already been involved in an 
honor incident less than two months prior to the occurrence of 
this second offense.” All subsequent reviewers agreed with the 
CSRP Chair’s assessment. The applicant’s misconduct was not 
mischaracterized since the egregiousness of his offense was 
deliberate (he intended to cheat, and he did). The fact the 
applicant violated the Honor Code a second time only one month 
after being found in violation of the Honor Code makes his 
second offense even more deliberate and egregious. The 
applicant was afforded due process throughout the consideration 
of his case. The applicant’s case was decided by his peers and 
the USAFA leadership in accordance with their authority. 

 

A complete copy of the USAFA/CW evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

Counsel argues the USAFA/CW evaluation fails to be responsive to 
a number of points raised in the applicant’s submission: 

 

 1. The advisory does not address the applicant’s success 
on probation as a factor to be considered in resolving his 
claims. 

 

 2. On the question of egregiousness, it fails to address 
the fact the cadet who gave the applicant the information in 
question during the second honor violation committed a more 
serious honor violation by stealing it from another cadet. Yet, 
that individual was allowed to remain at the Academy. 

 

 3. Contrary to the advisory, an intent to cheat, standing 
alone, does not make an honor violation egregious. Nor does the 
commission of a second offense, standing alone, mean the second 
offense is egregious. 

 

Counsel also argues the USAFA Superintendent abandoned his role 
in overseeing the honor system, when he failed to refer the case 
to the Academy Board. The Superintendent had an independent 
duty to exercise his own judgment when considering an appeal 
rather than to defer to the cadets who run the honor system. 
Thus, his decision to deny the applicant’s appeal was arbitrary, 
capricious, and unreasonable. The applicant has demonstrated he 
was treated unjustly and deserves the relief requested. 

 

The applicant also submitted an expanded statement wherein he 
reiterates that he was unfairly denied the opportunity to 
demonstrate he was worthy for retention when he was unable to 
complete his honor probation associated with his first honor 
code violation; his forthrightness in the matter and supporting 
statements were not appropriately considered when the USAFA 
leadership decided his fate; the CSRP Chairperson was clearly 
biased since she served as the Group Honor Chair and the CSRP 


Chair for his earlier minor Honor Code violation; and, it is 
significant that he admitted to his mistake and was completely 
honest after realizing the mistake he had made. Having looked 
at the four factors, it is difficult for him to believe he was 
disenrolled. 

 

In support of his response, the applicant provides an expanded 
statement, a statement from Counsel, and a supporting statement 
from his father attesting to conversations he indicates he had 
with the USAFA Commandant of Cadets in the aftermath of both of 
the applicant’s honor code violations. He contends that based 
on advice from the Commandant, he told the applicant to admit 
guilt and accept responsibility for his actions and everything 
would work out to the applicant’s benefit; however, this turned 
out to not be true and his son was unfairly disenrolled. 

 

A complete copy of the applicant’s response, with attachments, 
is at Exhibit E. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

USAFA/JA recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an 
error or injustice. The applicant contends that his 
disenrollment from USAFA was unjust because his honor violations 
were not egregious, he was subjected to multiple due process 
violations, he was denied the opportunity to prove his 
worthiness for retention when he was not allowed to complete his 
honor probation, his forthrightness in accepting responsibility 
and statements rendered in his behalf were not given due 
consideration, the CSRP chair was biased against him, and the 
Superintendent, USAFA abdicated his authority when he deferred 
his decision to the cadets who run the honor system. However, 
throughout the application, neither the applicant nor his 
attorney ever denies the applicant admitted to committing 
multiple honor code violations during his first few months at 
USAFA. While he contends that his honor code violation was not 
egregious and that another cadet involved in the incident was 
guilty of much worse behavior, egregiousness is one of four main 
factors considered by parties making a sanctions recommendation 
in an honor case. The other factors are: time under the code, 
forthrightness, and the type of report (self-report, admit, or 
deny). While the applicant’s first violation was not considered 
to be egregious, his second violation, copying a classmate’s 
computer program for use in his homework, then failing to 
document that he received help was found to be more egregious 
because of the deliberativeness of his actions, particularly in 
the aftermath of the first violation. While the honor system 
does not do case and sanctioning comparisons as each case is 
assessed on a case-by-case basis, the Deputy Chief of the Honor 
Division did label the egregiousness of the other cadet involved 
“significant” (which is consistent with the assessment of that 


factor in the applicant’s case) and the CSRP Chairperson 
considered that other cadet’s egregiousness “moderate.” 

 

As for the applicant’s contentions related to discrepancies in 
the handling of his case, he has presented no evidence that he 
was improperly advised of his right to counsel. On the 
contrary, the compelling evidence that does exist indicates he 
was properly advised of his right to counsel, as evidenced by 
his initials/signature on the 19 Oct 10 Letter of Notification 
(LON). 

 

As for his contention the final honor allegation was different 
than the original honor allegation noted in the LON, this 
contention is without merit as the change was nothing more than 
a minor, administrative change to account for the specific facts 
that were developed in the course of the honor investigation. 
The original allegation to be investigated, as incorporated into 
the LON, was, "Cheating, on or about 27 Sep 10 with the intent 
to receive undeserved credit when you copied and pasted 
algorithms from C4C J- D-, which you received from C4C J— H—, 
into homework #3, which was in violation of the Computer Science 
department's help policy, and which you also failed to document 
in your documentation statement." However, the allegation was 
subsequently amended because the applicant admitted to his 
teacher that he had in fact copied what was given to him by C4C 
H—, but was unaware that the program originally came from 
C4C D -. Therefore, though the substance of the allegation and 
its context remained unchanged, to ensure accuracy of the 
allegation, the new allegation eliminated reference to C4C D—. 
Subsequently, the applicant admitted to, and the CSRP found the 
applicant in violation of the new allegation that read, 
"Cheating with the intent to gain unfair advantage on or about 
27 Sep 10 by pasting significant portions of algorithms for his 
Computer Science HW#3 from C4C J— H—, who obtained the programs 
from another cadet, and failing to document the same which is a 
violation of the Computer Science help and documentation 
policies, with the intent to receive credit for work not his.” 
As for his assertion his honor violation was mischaracterized to 
USAFA Senior Leadership when: 1) the CSRP Chairperson 
mistakenly indicated the applicant “committed the action after 
recently getting placed on probation for an honor violation 
early this semester,” when he was not placed on probation until 
three days after the second honor incident, 2) cadets involved 
in his case stated he was under the honor code for four months 
when the applicant was only under the honor code for three 
months and that his actions were "motivated by laziness, the 
noted errors in the chronology of events and the applicant’s 
time under code, as well as the speculative comments related to 
what motivated the applicant’s first honor code violation should 
be deemed harmless. While the applicant’s second honor 
violation occurred 27 Sep 10 and he was placed on Honor 
Probation from the first incident on 1 Oct 10, both the 
Commandant and the Superintendent were aware of this delayed 
probation placement before they took action on the case so their 


disenrollment recommendation and decision, respectively, were 
not made based on this inaccurate statement in the CSRP 
Chairperson’s memorandum. While the applicant’s Cadet Squadron 
Commander, in his Sanction Recommendation memorandum for record 
(MFR), stated the time under the Code as being four vice three 
months, this can also be deemed harmless error as the time under 
the Code factor, whether it be three or four months, weighed in 
the applicant's favor in this case. The significance of this 
factor is more a function of years/number of semesters a cadet 
lives under the code and not the difference of one additional 
month that makes more of an impact in this category. Further, 
the Commandant and the Superintendent are fully aware of the 
when the four degrees arrive for in-processing at the end of 
June each year and know they've all had limited time under the 
code during that first academic semester. Finally, while it was 
speculative for the applicant's squadron commander to have 
labeled the applicant's first honor incident as, "motivated by 
laziness," in his MFR, the disenrollment was based upon the 
second honor infraction and the squadron commander’s MFR was not 
used in the sanctioning determination. Finally, concerning the 
applicant’s lack of access to the CSRP recommendation, the ADC 
acknowledges in his 16 Feb 11 MFR that the situation has now 
been remedied since he received the CSRP recommendation. 

 

As for the applicant’s assertion he should have been allowed to 
complete his honor code probation associated with his first 
honor code violation, successful completion of honor probation 
does not factor into the sanctions determination for subsequent 
honor violations. Therefore, while it is true the applicant 
performed admirably while on his honor probation and the 
Superintendent had that information before him when he made his 
disenrollment decision, the applicant was not able to complete 
his honor probation for the first honor offense because he was 
disenrolled based on his second honor infraction prior to 
completion. 

 

As for the applicant’s assertion that not enough weight was 
given to his forthrightness in the matter or the affirmative 
recommendations of his peers, cadet leadership, AOC, and 
professor, the Commandant and Superintendent considered the 
entire case file and made their determination based on their 
judgment and experience. The applicant has not presented any 
evidence that the Commandant and/or Superintendent failed to 
consider these aforementioned inputs that were before them when 
taking action in this case. 

 

While the applicant argues the CSRP Chairperson was biased since 
she served as both the Group Honor Chair (GHC) and as the CSRP 
Chairperson for his initial honor infraction, it is standard 
procedure in the Honor Division for the GHC to act as the CSRP 
Chair for cases that occur within their Group. In addition, the 
applicant acknowledged that he could challenge her appointment 
as the presiding GHC, and he chose not to do so. 


As for the allegation the Superintendent abandoned his role in 
overseeing the honor system by simply deferring his decision to 
the cadets who run the honor system, this case was only before 
the Superintendent because the Commandant first gave the 
applicant’s honor case file due diligence and consideration 
before making a recommendation for disenrollment. It is 
oversimplifying the situation to imply that the Superintendent 
is somehow delegating his disenrollment authority. In addition, 
the Superintendent is not required to obtain an advisory opinion 
from the Academy Board and in his discretion elected not to do 
so in this case. 

 

A complete copy of the USAFA/JA evaluation is at Exhibit F. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The applicant reiterates many of his original assertions 
described above and indicates it is difficult for him to 
understand how he was disenrolled for his failure to document 
the help he received when his roommate was allowed to stay at 
USAFA when he was guilty of what seems to be a more egregious 
violation of the honor code. This inconsistent treatment only 
undermines confidence in the Honor system as it is applied to 
cadets involved in the same incident. In addition, he does not 
remember being told or signing anything that said the GCH that 
had presided over his first honor infraction would preside over 
his second. Upon arriving at his second CSRP, the first thing 
she said was, “Why are you here again? Obviously, you didn’t 
learn anything the first time.” Clearly, her decision has been 
made even before he could state his case. 

 

Counsel argues that the USAFA/JA advisory opinion fails to be 
responsive to many of the points raised in the application, and 
again attaches independent statements. 

 

On the issue of egregiousness, the advisory appears to concede 
that the cadet who gave the applicant the computer program in 
question (the second honor violation), committed a more serious 
honor violation by stealing it from another cadet. Implicitly, 
the advisory opinion confirms this cadet was allowed to remain 
at USAFA. 

 

The advisory also claims that successful completion of honor 
probation should not factor into resolving subsequent honor 
violations or sanctions. There is no basis for this position. 
On the contrary, the Deputy Chief of the Honor Division (CWCH), 
stated, “These factors, taken together, indicate that the 
applicant will not successfully complete probation, so CWCH 
recommends disenrollment.” His prediction proved to be 
meritless. The advisory writer concedes, “we concur that the 
applicant had performed admirably while on his honor 
probation….” In another misleading statement, the advisory used 


a partial quote from a professor to imply that he was not 
supportive and may even have been performing a purely 
administrative function in completing his assessment. Nothing 
could be further from the truth. If he felt the applicant had 
cheated in lieu of simply neglecting to document assistance, he 
never would have given the applicant a passing grade on the 
assignment. Perhaps most noteworthy is the advisory’s failure 
to acknowledge the repeated statements of strong support 
rendered by his AOC. These statements appear to be have been 
ignored by the Superintendent, who appears to have completely 
deferred to the conclusions and recommendations submitted by the 
cadets who run the Honor system. Counsel states the advisory 
does not include any statements from the Superintendent or the 
Commandant challenging conversations they reportedly had with 
the applicant’s father. 

 

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit H. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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. The 
applicant contends that his disenrollment from USAFA was unjust 
because his honor violations were not egregious, he was 
subjected to multiple due process violations, he was denied the 
opportunity to prove his worthiness for retention when he was 
not allowed to complete his honor probation, his forthrightness 
in accepting responsibility and statements rendered in his 
behalf were not given due consideration, the CSRP chair was 
biased against him, and the USAFA Superintendent abdicated his 
authority when he deferred to the cadets who run the honor 
system in making his decision. After a thorough review of the 
evidence of record and the applicant’s complete submission, to 
include the various responses to the advisory opinions rendered 
in his case, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of 
the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their 
rationale for the basis of our conclusion the applicant has not 
been the victim of an error or injustice. Counsel argues the 
applicant’s honor violation that precipitated his disenrollment 
was mischaracterized as egregious when compared to that of his 
former roommate, who was retained at USAFA even though his 
conduct was much more egregious; however, other than his own 
assertions, he has presented no evidence to indicate that his 
conduct (deliberately copying a classmate’s computer program for 
use in his homework and failing to document that he received 
help) was not appropriately characterized based on the fact that 


his actions were deliberate and took place only one month after 
committing his first honor code violation. Concerning the 
applicant’s contention that his former roommate was retained at 
USAFA after a more egregious honor infraction, the Board 
understands that USAFA leadership must consider each case 
independently, and the applicant has not provided sufficient 
corroborating evidence to establish that he is the victim of 
disparate treatment or that USAFA leadership, who had all the 
facts available to them, failed to properly carry out their 
duties and responsibilities by exceeding their discretionary 
authority. Therefore, based on the presumption of regularity in 
governmental affairs we must assume the responsible officials 
acted appropriately in deciding the applicant’s case. 

 

The applicant also argues that he was subjected to multiple due 
process violations; however, based on the evidence before us, we 
believe the applicant’s due process rights were thoroughly 
observed throughout the process. While he alleges he was 
improperly advised on his right to counsel, the evidence of 
record clearly indicates he understood his rights to counsel as 
evidenced by his initials on the letter of notification (LON). 
As for his assertion the violation he was found guilty of was 
different than the original honor violation cited in the LON, we 
are not convinced the evolution of the allegation over the 
course of the investigation served to deprive him of his due 
process rights. In this respect, we note the comments of 
USAFA/JA indicating the change was actually nothing more than a 
minor, administrative change to account for the specific facts 
which were developed over the course of the honor investigation, 
as is normally done. The applicant also contends that his 
second honor code violation was mischaracterized when 
erroneous/objectionable statements were included in various 
documents. While the CSRP Chairperson mistakenly indicated that 
his second honor code violation took place while he was on honor 
probation for his first offense, and his squadron commander 
mistakenly indicated that he was subject to the honor code for 
four months instead of three months, we find these errors of 
fact harmless and are not persuaded they served to deprive 
reviewing officials, the Commandant of Cadets and 
Superintendent, of information essential in rendering a reasoned 
decision in the applicant’s case. In this respect, we note the 
comments of USAFA/JA indicating that notwithstanding the noted 
errors, both the Commandant and the Superintendent were well 
aware of the applicant’s delayed probation placement and his 
time under code before they took action on the case so their 
disenrollment recommendation and decision, respectively, were 
not made based on these minor inaccuracies in the evidence of 
record. As for the applicant’s objection to the speculative 
language used in his squadron commander’s MFR, we note that this 
MFR was rendered as a part of the applicant’s first honor code 
violation and therefore was not used in the sanctioning 
determination of his second infraction, which resulted in his 
disenrollment. Finally, the applicant contends that his due 
process rights were violated when certain documents related to 


his disenrollment decision were not made available to him for 
his use in crafting an effective appeal. While it appears there 
was a delay in providing these documents to the applicant, the 
documents were eventually made available for the applicant’s use 
to craft his appeal. 

 

The applicant also contends that had he been able to complete 
his Honor Probation, he would have effectively demonstrated his 
worthiness for retention. However, we are not convinced the 
termination of the applicant’s honor probation was due to an 
error or injustice on the part of the Air Force. In our view, 
it was his own action of violating the honor code a second time 
that resulted in his inability to complete honor probation, and 
the Superintendent was aware of his progress in the Honor 
Probation Program when making the disenrollment decision. 

 

As for the applicant’s remaining allegations that insufficient 
weight was given to the opinions and inputs of cadet leadership, 
the Air Officer Commanding (AOC), professors, and the 
applicant’s peers; the CSRP failed to fully address the 
"forthrightness" factor or consider “Understanding of the Code;" 
the CSRP Chair was biased against him since she served as the 
Group Honor Chair (GHC) and the CSRP Chair for his earlier minor 
honor code violation; or, the Superintendent abdicated his 
authority by not referring the matter to the Academy Board, once 
again, other than his own assertions, the applicant has not 
provided sufficient evidence for us to conclude that responsible 
officials failed to properly exercise the discretionary 
authority granted them. Finally, we note the applicant’s father 
has rendered statements wherein he expresses his concern about 
certain conversations he had with the Commandant of Cadets and 
Superintendent. However, other than his own assertions, he has 
provided no evidence which would lead us to believe that USAFA 
leadership failed to fulfill their responsibilities when 
considering and making a final determination in this 
disenrollment case. Ultimately, while the applicant, his 
counsel, and area defense counsel (ADC) present a variety of 
arguments intended to impugn the fairness and outcome of the 
process that resulted in the applicant’s disenrollment from the 
USAFA, we are not persuaded the applicant was denied rights to 
which he was entitled, appropriate standards were not followed, 
or that responsible officials abused their discretionary 
authority or acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner. 
Therefore, in view of the foregoing and in absence of evidence 
to the contrary, we are not persuaded that we should substitute 
our judgment for that of responsible officials who determined 
the applicant should be disenrolled from the USAFA. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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-2011-03934 in Executive Session on 27 Jun 12, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 20 Sep 11, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, USAFA/CWCH, dated 8 Nov 11. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Dec 11. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, Counsel, dated 8 Jan 12, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, USAFA/JA, dated 23 Apr 12. 

 Exhibit G. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 7 May 12. 

 Exhibit H. Letter, Counsel, dated 1 Jun 12, w/atchs. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair