RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-04570 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

1. His military records be corrected to reflect that the 
highest rank he held was 2nd Lieutenant (2Lt, O-1). 

 

2. His records be cleared of all unsubstantiated Air Force 
allegations, which damaged his security clearance and ability to 
work in most jobs he trained for. 

 

3. The Air Force acknowledge that he was treated unfairly and 
his rights were disregarded. 

 

4. The following punitive charges be brought against Col H., 
Col S. and Lt Col M.: 

 

 a. Discrimination. 

 b. Adultery (for Col H. only). 

 c. Conduct unbecoming. 

 d. Unlawful detention. 

 e. Refusing him legal counsel. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

In the Fall of 1980 Col H. and Lt Col M. called him into Col 
H.’s office and told him that a black man should not be married 
to a white woman and they were going to do something about it. 
Lt Col M. told him that by the time he dug himself out from 
under the paperwork they were going to put on him, his wife 
would be gone. Lt Col M. continually degraded and disrespected 
him during his time at the university. 

 

On 4 Feb 1981, he received his commission (see Reserve Action 
Notice, dated 29 Jan 1981). 

 

He completed the AFROTC program a full semester prior to his 
graduation. He provides a college transcript as proof. 

 

Approximately one year before he was disenrolled, he was 
wrongfully accused by his superiors of cheating on the 
Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) by having his wife take the test 
for him. When it was found to be untrue (see Educational 
Testing Service letter, dated 7 Jul 1980), he was accused of 


abusing his spouse, which was also untrue (see Det Form Letter 
2, dated 6 Oct 1980 and Washington State University letter, 
dated 20 Aug 1996). 

 

Prior to his disenrollment, he was held without legal cause in 
the basement of the ROTC building for three days and he was 
denied military or civilian counsel during this time. 

 

The accusations were false and he was intentionally misinformed 
of his rights during the disciplinary/disenrollment process. He 
was not afforded the right to defend himself or appeal his 
superiors’ decisions regarding the accusations. 

 

In Feb 1981, he caught Col H. in bed with his wife for a second 
time. The first time was in Apr 1980. Col H. told him to keep 
his mouth shut and he would ensure he received his commission. 
If he did not keep quiet, he would be buried so deep in problems 
the Air Force would not want him. This was the second threat 
from him. His supervisors retaliated against him by 
disenrolling him from the AFROTC program. 

 

On 2 Mar 1981, he was wrongfully disenrolled from the Air Force 
Reserve Officer Training Corps (AFROTC) Program, almost a full 
month after his commission date and consequently did not retire 
at the proper rank. 

 

His disenrollment was based on manufactured accusations and 
charges that his detachment commander knew were false. 

 

His current retirement should be based on having met the 
requirements of, and actually being commissioned as a 2Lt. 

 

Col H., who was the investigator and the instigator of the 
alleged “domestic problems,” and the man who was having an 
affair with his wife, was himself being investigated for sexual 
harassment (see newspaper article). 

 

His chain of command prohibited his civilian counsel from 
participating in the proceedings. The command openly 
discriminated against him. His requests for military counsel 
and attempts to get help from the Inspector General (IG) were 
ignored and covered up (see DAIG-AC letter, dated 4 Sep 1981). 

 

He requested a copy of his military records from the National 
Personnel Records Center (NPRC) and found two DD Forms 785, Record of Disenrollment from Officer Candidate Type Training, 
that were signed by Col S., with two different reasons for 
disenrollment listed under section III. Neither accusation was 
found to be true in any court of law or military organization. 

 

He originally enlisted with his birth name, Joseph Jones, and 
attended AFROTC with the same name. After he was disenrolled 
from the program, he decided to change his name to protect his 
privacy. His former superiors from the AFROTC program were 


harassing him at each of his subsequent assignments, by calling 
his place of duty and his supervisors. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal 
statement, copies of a Declaration of Legal Name Change, Reserve 
Action Notice, dated 29 Jan 1981; Certificates of Appointment, 
Certificates of Training, DD Forms 214, Certificate of Release 
or Discharge from Active Duty; letters of recommendation, 
Enlisted Evaluation Reports, Discharge Certificates, a newspaper 
article, and other voluminous documents. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant contracted with the AFROTC on 23 Jan 1979. 

 

According to a DD Form 785, dated 2 Mar 1981, the AFROTC 
Detachment 905 commander initiated disenrollment action against 
the applicant under the provisions of AFR 45-48, Air Force 
Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC), and AFROTCR 45 -
10 (Undesirable Traits of Character). Section III, Reason and 
Circumstances for Disenrollment, states “His history of domestic 
problems has created for him a barrage of allegations that have 
resulted in an investigation. The detailed report of 
investigation is attached.” 

 

In a HQ AFROTC/RRFD letter, dated 29 Dec 2011, AFROTC states 
disenrollment files could not be located for the applicant. 
Files are maintained for a maximum of three years after the date 
of disenrollment then are destroyed in accordance with Records 
Disposition Schedule, table 10-14, rule 10. 

 

On 28 Apr 1981, the applicant was honorably discharged from the 
Air Force Reserves. 

 

The following is a resume of the applicant’s military service: 

 

Branch Inclusive Period Discharge 

 

Marines 4 Jul 1964 thru 13 Dec 1968 Honorable 

 

Army 4 Oct 1970 thru 3 Jul 1973 Honorable 

 

Navy 3 Aug 1974 thru 28 Jun 1977 Honorable 

 

Navy Reserves 29 Jun 1977 thru 19 Dec 1979 Honorable 

 

Air Force Reserves 20 Dec 1979 thru 28 Apr 1981 Honorable 

 

________________________________________________________________ 


THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFOATS/JA recommends denial. JA states per the Air Force 
Records Information Management System, Disenrollment from 
Officer Candidate-Type Training records are destroyed after 
three years. The three year date begins on the date of 
disenrollment. According to the records provided by the 
applicant, he was disenrolled from AFROTC in Mar 1981, so his 
records would have been destroyed in Mar 1984. 

 

During disenrollment, the cadet is given an opportunity to 
submit a rebuttal or response. If a cadet elects to submit a 
rebuttal or response, that document is kept with the package and 
reviewed at all levels along with the report of investigation. 
The final disenrollment decision, made by HQ AFROTC, would have 
considered any response provided the applicant. The decision to 
disenroll him from AFROTC and not allow him to commission in the 
United States Air Force was not punitive in nature, but merely 
an activation of the terms of the contract he voluntarily signed 
at the time he enlisted in the Obligated Reserve Section of the 
Inactive Reserves, and was in keeping with national AFROTC 
policy. The scheduled destruction of his record three years 
after his disenrollment makes it impossible to present the 
specific facts of his case. Therefore, JA cannot provide 
details regarding the disenrollment process. 

 

This application was not submitted within the three-year window 
prescribed by AFI 36-2603, paragraph 3.5.7. JA states the 
requested relief in this case should be denied due to the fact 
that there are no records to prove that he was or was not given 
his due process. 

 

The complete JA evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

In addition to the obvious "cover up" of his superiors’ 
misconduct while he was in the ROTC program, his superiors 
discriminated against him because of his race and his 
affiliation with a woman of another race. His former wife and 
Lt H. attempted to murder him, which Col S. and Lt Col M. 
sanctioned. The command was more concerned about covering up 
the infidelities and criminal acts of Lt Col H. than protecting 
the rights and welfare of a cadet in their command. He 
contacted the IG who did nothing about the allegations he made 
against Lt Col H. and his former wife. 

 

His current wife is a witness and is willing to testify, if 
needed. During this period at ROTC he was lied to, harassed, 
falsely accused and discriminated against by his command. He 
waited a month after his graduation for orders that he knew Lt 
Col M. had received at least three months prior to his 


graduation. These orders reflected that he was to be 
commissioned on his graduation date. 

 

The command waited until 2 Mar - his 35th birthday, to tell him 
that he would not be commissioned because he was too old. They 
did not provide him any documentation. 

 

He never refused his commission, so the command did not have the 
authority to disenroll him after he had already graduated. 

 

He never received orders to go to any command as an enlisted 
man, nor did he ever receive a discharge from the Air Force. 

 

After he was shot, the command just made him "disappear." This 
has continued to cause him problems many years later. He has 
submitted all of the evidence required to support his claim. It 
is not his fault that his records which should have been 
maintained by the Air Force were disposed of. This part of his 
past has been haunting him for years and he requests that 
justice be made. 

 

His complete response is at Exhibit E. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE BOARD: 

 

After careful consideration of the applicant’s request and the 
evidence of record, we find the application untimely. The 
applicant did not file within three years after the alleged 
error or injustice was discovered as required by Title 10, 
United States Code, Section 1552 and Air Force Instruction 36-
2603. The applicant has not shown a sufficient reason for the 
delay in filing on a matter now dating back over 30 years, which 
has greatly complicated the ability to determine the merits of 
his case. We are also not persuaded the record raises issues of 
error or injustice which require resolution on the merits based 
on the lack of official documentation to support his request. 
Thus, we cannot conclude it would be in the interest of justice 
to excuse applicant’s failure to file in a timely manner. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

DECISION OF THE BOARD: 

 

The application was not timely filed and it would not be in the 
interest of justice to waive the untimeliness. It is the 
decision of the Board, therefore, to reject the application as 
untimely. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 


The following members of the Board considered this application 
in Executive Session on 5 Sep 2012, under the provisions of AFI 
36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

, Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC-
2011-04570: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 25 Oct 2011, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Holm Center/JA, dated 17 Jul 2012, w/atch. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 25 Jul 2012. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 21 Aug 2012. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair