RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: BC-2011-04504 

COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His numerical rating in Section IV, of his DD Form 785, Record of 
Disenrollment from Officer Candidate – Type Training, be changed 
from a “3-Should Not Be Considered Without Weighing the Needs of 
the Service Against the Reasons for Disenrollment,” to a “4-
Recommended if Physical Defects are Corrected or if Such Defects 
Are Not Disqualifying for Other Reasons,” or a “5-Definitely Not 
Recommended.” 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

A rating of either a ”4” or “5” would more accurately reflect his 
aptitude for continued service in an Air Force Reserve Officer 
Training Corps (AFROTC) commission program. He signed the DD 
Form 785 before his Air Officer Commanding (AOC) completed 
Sections III and IV of the form. He signed a blank DD Form 785 
because the AOC said it was standard procedure to do so. The 
actions taken by his AOC were unprofessional and unjust and have 
denied him the opportunity to successfully compete for 
readmission to the United States Air Force Academy (USAFA) and 
seriously inhibit his ability to attain a commission via other 
sources. 

 

The applicant does not provide any evidence in support of his 
appeal. 

 

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

On 28 June 2007, the applicant entered the USAFA to begin basic 
training. After the fall semester of the 2008-2009 academic 
year, he was recommended for disenrollment by an Academic Review 
Committee (ARC) based on his academic deficiencies. On 
13 February 2009, the USAFA Superintendant concurred with the ARC 
recommendation and the applicant was disenrolled from the USAFA. 
The applicant had a 1.51 Grade Point Average (GPA) and anything 
under a 2.0 GPA is considered deficient. The applicant received 
an honorable discharge characterization and was assigned a rating 


of “3-Should Not Be Considered without Weighing the Needs of the 
Service against the Reasons for Disenrollment” on his DD Form 
785. 

 

The remaining relevant facts, extracted from the applicant’s 
military service record, are contained in the evaluation provided 
by the Air Force office of primary responsibility at Exhibit C. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

USAFA/JA recommends denial. JA states the applicant’s DD Form 
785 correctly states the circumstances surrounding his situation 
at the time of his disenrollment from the USAFA. The applicant 
clearly does not understand the DD Form 785 numerical ratings and 
the fact that by granting his request, it would actually be 
making the administrative consequences of his situation worse. 
Although he believes changing his rating from a “3” to a “4” or 
“5” on the DD Form 785 is going to make his readmission to the 
USAFA or entry into another commissioning program more likely, 
the opposite is actually true. Clearly a DD Form 785 rating of 
“4” is not merited in this case, as that rating is reserved for 
individuals disenrolled for medical reasons. The governing Air 
Force Instruction’s definition for a rating of “3” on the DD Form 
785 is most consistent for the cases where the cadet is failing 
to “meet or exceed minimum standards” but, still has served 
honorably. A rating of “5” is traditionally reserved for former 
USAFA cadets that have demonstrated a lengthy pattern of 
misconduct. A rating of “5” is a means to differentiate cadet 
cases where the disenrolled cadet has often committed Uniform 
Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) infractions from those physical 
fitness/academic deficiency cases where the former cadet does 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 applicant is also confused as to who accomplishes the DD Form 
785. It is not the AOC, but rather the Superintendent, who 
assigns the DD Form 785 numerical rating and approves the 
language that goes into the DD Form 785. The applicant also 
alleges he signed a DD Form 785 before his AOC completed Sections 
III and IV of the form. However, cadets do not sign the DD Form 
785. The contested rating was assigned by the Superintendent 
after having considered the circumstances surrounding the 
applicant’s academic deficiencies along with all the other 
entries in his personnel folder. If the applicant desires to 
seek a commission by reapplying to the USAFA or applying to the 
AFROTC, he will be afforded an opportunity to explain his USAFA 
transcripts and record during the officer accession training 
program application process as a means to supplement the DD Form 
785. 

 


The complete JA evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant 
on 24 January 2012, for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit D). 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 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. 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-2011-04504 in Executive Session on 7 June 2012, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 


The following documentary evidence was considered in connection 
with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2011-04504: 

 

Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 1 Nov 11. 

Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

Exhibit C. Letter, USAFA/JA, dated 3 Jan 12. 

Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 24 Jan 12. 

 

 

 

 

Panel Chair