RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-02423

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His call to Extended Active Duty (EAD) as an enlisted member 
be rescinded.  

2.  The tuition/subsistence be recouped monetarily.  

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was prevented from complying with the terms of his academic 
probation set forth in a formal disposition due to time 
constraints.  The call to EAD would prevent him from achieving 
his professional engineers’ license, which is arguably necessary 
for success in any engineering field.  EAD would serve the needs 
of the Air Force and the nation much less than allowing a 
licensed engineer to flourish.  

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

According to documents, submitted by the applicant, he was a 
cadet in the Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps (AFROTC) 
program at Auburn University.  He was disenrolled from the 
AFROTC program in July 2011.  

Additional relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of 
the Air Force at Exhibit B.  

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Holm Center/JA recommends denial of the applicant’s request to 
rescind his obligation to serve on Extended Active Duty.  On 
27 July 2011, the applicant was disenrolled from the AFROTC 
program under the provisions of AFI 36-2011, Air Force Reserve 
Officer Training Corps Program, paragraph 6.1.4 and 6.1.7, and 
AFROTCI 36-2011 Cadet Operations, paragraph 11.4.2.1 and 
11.4.2.6, for failure to maintain academic retention standards 
and breach/anticipatory breach of the AFROTC contract.  
Specifically, he failed to maintain academic retention standards 
when he received five academic deficiencies and failed to 
maintain the required grade point average (GPA) during three 
academic terms.  Additionally, the applicant breached the AFROTC 
contract due to his inability to meet his date of graduation 
(DOG)/date of commission (DOC).  

	a. The applicant was enrolled in AFROTC pursuing a degree in 
aerospace engineering which is a SAF-approved five-year major.  
The applicant was scheduled to take the full five years to 
complete the degree.  Due to his earning five 
failing/substandard grades (4Fs, 1D) he put himself in the 
position where he could not complete his degree within the 
authorized and approved AFROTC maximum of five years.  In 
accordance with the terms of his contract, he was disenrolled 
from the AFROTC commissioning program.  

	b. AFROTCI 36-2011, para 4.3.9, states that Conditional 
Events (CEs) are official documentation of a failure to maintain 
AFROTC retention standards.  Paragraph 4.39.1.1, further states 
that contracted cadets who fail to maintain retention standards 
must receive a CE.  Upon issuing a contract cadet a fourth and 
any subsequent CE (third) if the cadet is within 12 months of 
DOC or has three CEs all for academic failure), the detachment 
must investigate the cadet for disenrollment.  Paragraph 11.7.1, 
states that upon review of a disenrollment package, AFROTC/RR 
may offer the cadet a suspended disenrollment and probation in 
lieu of disenrollment which is what AFROTC elected to do for the 
applicant in order to provide him the opportunity to raise his 
GPA and meet the minimum AFROTC standards.  However, the primary 
condition of the probation was that the applicant graduate and 
commission in FY 12, as no change in his DOG/DOC was approved. 

	c. Due to the applicant receiving two failing grades during 
the Fall 2010 term, which failures were verified on 
4 January 2011, he received his third CE dated 10 January 2011.  
That third CE triggered a disenrollment investigation, which the 
detachment completed on 7 February 2011.  HQ AFROTC did not 
receive the applicant’s disenrollment case file until 
11 February 2011.  AFROTC is authorized up to 60 days to review 
all disenrollment investigations.  The 60-day review window 
allows for the package to be reviewed at multiple levels before 
a final review and determination is made by the HQ AFROTC 
Registrar.  AFROTC completed the review of the applicant’s case 
on 8 April 2011 and determined that the applicant could remain 
in AFROTC, on a probationary status, provided he could meet his 
scheduled DOG/DOC date.  DOG/DC change was not authorized 
because cadets cannot be in AFROTC more than one year after 
completing four years of AFROTC instruction and training.  This 
information was forwarded to the detachment on 8 April 2011 and 
presented to the applicant on 18 April 2011.

	d. The applicant’s failed courses in Spring 2009, Spring 
2010 and Fall 2010, were the reasons for his not being able to 
make his contracted DOG/DOC date, which was the primary 
requirement of his probation.  The investigative process ensures 
the member is treated fairly and that AFROTC’s findings are 
legally sufficient.  The thorough review of his disenrollment 
case file and subsequent notification were accomplished within 
the authorized time limits stated in AFROTC 36-2011.  Therefore, 
the applicant’s inability to meet his contracted DOG/DOC was due 
to his own academic failures and not attributed to any fault of 
AFROTC.  

	e. The decision to call the applicant to EAD is not punitive 
in nature; rather, it is an activation of the voluntary 
commitment he made to the Air Force via the contract (AF Form 
1056) he signed on 13 August 2008, in exchange for education and 
training benefits and the opportunity to earn a commission as an 
Air Force officer.  The applicant’s failure to uphold the terms 
of his AFROTC contract resulted in his disenrollment and call to 
EAD.  The contract the applicant signed stipulated that if he 
failed to satisfy its terms he would either be called to EAD or 
have the funds paid on his behalf recouped.  Federal law, 
Department of Defense regulation (DoDI 1215.08) and Air Force 
Instruction state a call to EAD is the primary means of 
reimbursement for educational benefits.  

Holm Center/JA concludes that the applicant repeatedly failed to 
meet the standards expected of an officer candidate.  His 
records were properly reviewed through all levels of AFROTC and 
the decision to call him to EAD reflects a fair, consistent, and 
impartial evaluation for all AFROTC cadets on a national level.  
AFROTC's decision to disenroll the applicant and call him to EAD 
is both legally sufficient and appropriately applied.

The complete Holm Center/JA advisory is at Exhibit B.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force advisory was mailed to the applicant on 
30 August 2012 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit 
C).  To date, this office has not received a 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, the Board majority agrees with the opinion 
and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary 
responsibility and adopts its rationale as the basis for their 
conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an 
error or injustice.  In this respect, the majority notes the 
Holm Center/JA evaluation indicates the decision to call the 
applicant to extended active duty (EAD) is not punitive in 
nature; rather, it is an activation of the voluntary commitment 
he made to the Air Force via the contract he signed on 
13 August 2008, in exchange for education and training benefits 
and the opportunity to earn a commission as an Air Force 
officer.  The applicant's contentions are duly noted; however, 
the Board majority notes that it was his inability to uphold the 
terms of the AFROTC contract which stipulated that if he failed 
to satisfy its terms he would either be called to EAD or have 
the funds paid on his behalf recouped, resulting in his 
disenrollment and call to EAD.  Federal law, Department of 
Defense Instruction (DoDI 1215.08) and Air Force Instruction 
state a call to EAD is the primary means of reimbursement for 
educational benefits.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to 
the contrary, the majority of the Board finds no basis to 
recommend granting the relief sought in this application.  

________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:

A majority of the Board finds insufficient evidence of error or 
injustice and recommends the application be denied.  

________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application 
in Executive Session on 12 February 2013, under the provisions 
of AFI 36-2603:

				, Panel Chair
				, Member
				, Member

By a majority vote, the Board recommended denial of the 
application.  voted to correct the record and has submitted a 
minority report which is attached at Exhibit D.  The following 
documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2012-02423:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 5 June 2012, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, Holm Center/JA, dated 24 August 2012.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 August 2012.
    Exhibit D.  Minority Report, dated 5 March 2013.