AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 

 
 

 

 

 
 

DOCKET NUMBERS:  BC-2012-00404 
COUNSEL: NONE 
HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

IN THE MATTER OF:   
      
 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
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  “1-
Highly Recommended.”   
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
He has graduated from college with a bachelor’s degree, but has 
been unable to pursue a commission in the Armed Forces because of 
this rating.  The Director of Admissions at the United States Air 
Force  Academy  (USAFA)  has  encouraged  him  to  pursue  other 
commissioning sources, but a “3” rating has limited his options.  
He  believes  his  rating  was  directed  at  the  severity  of  his 
mistake rather than reflecting his officer potential.  He made a 
serious  error  in  judgment,  one  that  warranted  the  punishment 
given, but he still has the potential to become an officer in the 
Armed Forces.   
 
In  support  of  his  appeal,  the  applicant  provides  copies  of  his 
USAFA Disenrollment Form; his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release 
or Discharge from Active Duty; and several character references.   
 
The  applicant’s  complete  submission,  with  attachments,  is  at 
Exhibit A. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
 
On 26 June 2008, the applicant entered the USAFA to begin basic 
cadet training.  In the spring of 2010, he was placed on aptitude 
probation  after  he  admitted  to  providing  alcohol  to  cadets  who 
were under the legal age of 21.  While the Commandant of Cadets 
was  considering  his  case  for  a  hearing  officer  review  and 
possible  disenrollment,  the  applicant  elected  to  resign  before 
sanctions for his admitted offense.  The applicant was honorably 
discharged  effective  27  May  2010,  and  was  assigned  a  rating  of 
“3” 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 B. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
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 
seems to believe that a simple change of a numerical rating on 
his DD Form 785 is going to automatically make him eligible for 
future commissioning.  A rating of “1” in Section IV of the DD 
Form 785 is reserved for cadets that have exceeded the standards.  
The  applicant’s  offense  was  particularly  egregious  and  not 
considered  an  average  candidate’s  actions.    His  rating  was 
assigned  by  the  Superintendent  after  having  considered  the 
circumstances  surrounding  the  applicant’s  misconduct  along  with 
all the other entries in the applicant’s personnel folder.   
 
The complete JA evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit B.   
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
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,”  which  would  ban  him 
from serving in the military again.  He has dreamed of serving in 
the military ever since he was a child.  He realizes that if he 
stayed and chose to contest his charges he would no longer have a 
chance  at  serving  this  great  nation;  therefore,  he  resigned  in 
hopes  of  being  able  to  serve  later  in  his  life.    The  provided 
definition  of  a  “2”  rating,  “Recommended  as  an  Average  Cadet,” 
states that this rating is generally given to cadets with a grade 
point  average  (GPA)  above  a  2.0.    His  cumulative  GPA  was  3.5; 
therefore, a rating of “2” is more appropriate than a rating of 
“3.”  He begs the Board to consider raising his rating from “3” 
to “2.”  He has completely internalized the lessons learned from 
his mistakes and has suffered the consequences for the past two 
years.  Simply put, he is a hard working kid who just wants to be 
able to serve.   
 
The applicant’s complete rebuttal is at Exhibit D.   
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 
 
1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 
law or regulations. 
 
 

2

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.  We took note of 
the  reasons  why  the  applicant  believes  his  numerical  rating 
should be changed, however, we are not persuaded by the evidence 
provided that the rating he received was an error or constitutes 
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-2012-00404 in Executive Session on 9 August 2012, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 
 

 
 
 
 

  Panel Chair 
  Member 
  Member 

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 2 Feb 12, w/atchs. 
Exhibit B.  Letter, USAFA/JA, dated 6 Mar 12, w/atch.  
Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Mar 12. 
Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant, not dated. 

The  following  documentary  evidence  was  considered  in  connection 
with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-00404: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

  
Panel Chair 

  

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

3