RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-04500
		COUNSEL:  XXXXXXXXXX 
	XXXXXXXXXX	HEARING DESIRED:  YES

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  All documents related to her disenrollment from the Air 
Force Reserve Officer Training Corps (AFROTC) be removed from 
her records.

2.  All debt related to her disenrollment from AFROTC be set 
aside.

3.  Her Reentry (RE) code be changed to reflect “1,” which 
denotes reenlistment eligble.

4.  She be reinstated as a second lieutenant (2Lt, O-1) in the 
United States Air Force (USAF) with all back pay and allowances 
from the date of her commissioning (8 Jul 2011).

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

In a 10-page brief with 9 exhibits, the applicant’s counsel 
provides a chronological sequence of events leading up to her 
disenrollment from AFROTC.  Among the key points made by counsel 
are the following:

1.  The applicant was erroneously disenrolled from AFROTC after 
her graduation from college and commissioning.  She was then 
discharged from the Air Force after satisfying all commissioning 
requirements, swearing the oath of office, and being 
commissioned as a 2Lt.

2.  Air Force policy is discriminatory against women.  It does 
not provide women with an equal opportunity for commissioned 
service that is available to men.  The policy imposes barriers 
to commissioned service that are only applicable prior to 
commissioning, but not afterwards, and encourages young pregnant 
college cadets to obtain abortions in order to avoid 
disenrollment from AFROTC and the recoupment of college costs.  
The policy is in conflict with her Constitutional right to 
privacy, it encourages her to make decisions that could be 
adverse to her health, and unfairly treats prospective female 
officers differently than active duty female officers.


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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained 
in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air 
Force at Exhibit B.  Accordingly, there is no need to recite 
these facts in this Record of Proceedings.

________________________________________________________________

THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

USAF/JAA recommends approval.  JAA concludes that, as a matter 
of law, the applicant has held a valid commission as a 2Lt in 
the Reserve of the Air Force since 8 Jul 2011, and she remains 
assigned to Headquarters, Air Reserve Personnel Center (HQ 
ARPC).  Therefore, the Board should direct that her records be 
corrected to reflect this status.  The recoupment action taken 
against her should be terminated, as there is no legal basis 
currently supporting the action.  All collections made under the 
invalid recoupment action should be repaid.  The order 
discharging her from enlisted status as part of her purported 
cadet disenrollment and the corresponding DD Form 256AF, 
Honorable Discharge Certificate, should be removed from her 
records.  Any further administrative matters in her case should 
be referred to her current organization of assignment, HQ ARPC, 
for appropriate action.

The complete JAA evaluation is at Exhibit B.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Counsel agrees with the Judge Advocate General’s advisory 
opinion.  The applicant presently has a valid commission in the 
Reserve of the Air Force, is assigned to HQ ARPC, and the 
recoupment of AFROTC scholarship money was without any legal 
basis.  The applicant intends to comply with and honorably 
complete any orders that are issued.

On 12 Nov 2010, she was notified of an assignment to Langley AFB 
(Med/Surgery or Obstetrics) upon completion of the Nurse 
Transition Program (NTP).  To make her whole, counsel 
additionally requests the following:

1.  Immediate enrollment in the NTP course;

2.  Orders to Langley AFB (Obstetrics);

3.  Constructive service credit for time in service and time in 
grade from her date of rank so that she remains competitive with 
her peers for promotion;

4.  Removal of all AFROTC disenrollment documents from her 
official military records;

5.  Cancellation of the debt and recoupment action of AFROTC 
scholarship money;

6.  Repayment of any debt payments and interest associated with 
the recoupment of AFROTC scholarship money, and 

7.  All back pay and allowances

Counsel’s complete response, with attachment, is at Exhibit D.

________________________________________________________________

THE ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

USAF/AlP concurs with the applicant’s request that all documents 
related to her disenrollment from AFROTC be removed from her 
records and cancelling all debt related to her disenrollment.  
In regard to her RE code being changed to reflect “1,” A1P 
states that in accordance with (IAW) AFI 36-3207, Separating 
Commissioned Officers, RE codes are only reflected on enlisted 
members' separation documents.  As a commissioned officer, she 
should not have a RE code associated with her records.  
Regarding her request that she be reinstated as a 2Lt in the 
USAF with all back pay and allowances from her date of 
commissioning, A1P states that she should be reinstated in an 
Inactive Reserve Status effective 8 Jul 2011 and assigned to HQ 
ARPC.  The issue of back pay is more complex and ultimately any 
remedial action should be under the purview of HQ ARPC.  
However, due to her pregnancy, she would not have been able to 
attend her required nurse training starting in Aug 2011.  The 
earliest NTP training course she could have attended after 
childbirth was in Feb 2012; therefore she would have entered 
active duty in Feb 2012 to attend the training.

The complete A1P evaluation is at Exhibit E.

Holm Center/CC concurs with the applicant’s request that all 
documents related to her disenrollment from AFROTC be removed 
from her records and with cancelling all debt related to her 
AFROTC disenrollment, contingent upon the determination that her 
commissioning is deemed valid.  A valid commission should 
eliminate recoupment actions related to her disenrollment from 
AFROTC.  However, as a reserve officer assigned to HQ ARPC, 
effective 8 Jul 2011, all concerns related to debt recoupment 
actions should be investigated by HQ ARPC.  In regard to her 
request that she be reinstated as a 2Lt in the USAF with all 
back pay and allowances from her date of commissioning, CC 
states that she is not entitled to all back pay and allowances 
dating back to 8 Jul 2011.  Even if her commissioning is deemed 
valid, she would have been placed in a "no-pay" status in the 
Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) effective 8 Jul 2011 while she 
awaited extended Active Duty (EAD) orders.  Due to her 
pregnancy, which ended in Nov 2011, the earliest she could have 
attended NTP after childbirth was in Feb 2012.  Accordingly, the 
earliest likely date the applicant could have been placed on EAD 
orders and started receiving pay was early Feb 2012.

Moreover, the Board could take this opportunity to determine 
that the applicant fraudulently obtained an Air Force commission 
by knowingly withholding medically disqualifying information 
prior to her commissioning.  AFROTC conducted a thorough 
investigation of her actions leading up to her 8 Jul 
2011 commissioning.  The evidence revealed that she knew she was 
required to disclose her change in medical status (pregnancy) to 
AFROTC, yet she knowingly withheld notice of her pregnancy from 
21 Mar 2011, the date she learned she was pregnant, until a few 
days following her commissioning.  Due to her lack of integrity 
and obtaining a commission by fraud, the Board should consider 
pursuing an administrative discharge of the applicant.  The 
Board should also consider that she be subject to recoupment of 
the AFROTC scholarship money paid to her.

The complete CC advisory is at Exhibit F.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Both USAF/A1P and Holm Center/CC agree that the Board should 
grant all of the requested relief.  However, counsel must 
comment on CC’s analysis regarding 10 U.S.C. § 1552.  CC has 
suggested, contrary to the opinions of the Office of the Judge 
Advocate General, that the Board interpret the statute to give 
it the authority to morph into a fact-finding and adjudicative 
body.  CC further suggests that the Board deny the applicant the 
due process that she was entitled to as a matter of law while on 
active duty and deny the requested relief.  Moreover, the 
suggestion that she lacked integrity is without merit.  CC is 
not in a position to have judged witness credibility or to stand 
in judgment of her.  She has always acted in accordance with her 
conscience and with integrity.  Furthermore, CC could not be 
more wrong about the law and the Board's statutory authority.  
The Board has a duty, enforced by the federal courts, to ensure 
that the Department of the Air Force follows its own 
regulations.  Relief here is just, should be prompt, and is 
required by law.

Counsel’s complete response 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 error or injustice.  We note that 
the applicant is requesting reinstatement with all back pay and 
allowances, constructive service credit, immediate enrollment in 
the Nurse Training Program and her previous orders to Langley 
AFB be honored.  However, after a careful review of the facts 
and circumstances in this case, we do believe Board action is 
warranted at this time.  In this respect, we note that AFROTC 
lacked the authority to revoke or nullify the applicant’s 
commission.  Therefore, as pointed-out by JAA, any 
administrative actions after her assignment to HQ ARPC could 
only have been accomplished by HQ ARPC.  In view of this, we 
agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force 
offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as 
the basis for our conclusion that any remedial actions should be 
accomplished under the purview of HQ ARPC.  Accordingly, we find 
no basis to recommend approval of this portion of her request.

4.  Notwithstanding the above, sufficient relevant evidence has 
been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error.  The 
applicant is requesting that her records be corrected to reflect 
that she incurred no debt associated with her disenrollment from 
AFROTC, and any documents pertaining to her disenrollment be 
removed.  After a careful review of the evidence, we believe 
that a measure of relief is warranted.  In this respect, we note 
that the Holm Center, based on the evidence, states that the 
applicant fraudulently obtained a commission by knowingly 
withholding medically disqualifying information prior to her 
commissioning and suggests the Board consider pursing an 
administrative discharge.  However, given that the applicant, by 
law, could not be disenrolled from AFROTC once she was 
commissioned, we are in agreement with the Air Force offices of 
primary responsibility assessment of the case that any remedial 
actions should be accomplished under the purview of HQ ARPC.  In 
view of the above, we find it in the interest of justice to 
favorably consider these requests.  Therefore, we recommend that 
her records be corrected to reflect that no debt was 
established, all collections made under the invalid recoupment 
actions be repaid, any documents pertaining to her disenrollment 
be removed and she be assigned to ARPC in the IRR effective 
8 Jul 2011.  Accordingly, we recommend her record be corrected 
to the extent indicated below.

5.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not 
been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel 
will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved.  
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably 
considered.

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air 
Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that: 

      a.   All documents related to her disenrollment from AFROTC 
be declared void and removed from her records.

      b.  Reserve Order CC-67 dated 8 Oct 2011, be declared void 
and removed from her records.
      
      c.  She was assigned to ARPC in the IRR effective 8 Jul 
2011 in the grade of 2Lt.
      
      d.  At the time of her disenrollment from the AFROTC 
program, on 13 Sep 2011, competent authority determined that no 
debt was established and all collections made under the invalid 
recoupment actions be repaid.

________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application 
in Executive Session on 18 Apr 2013, under the provisions of AFI 
36-2603:

    , Panel Chair
    , Member
    , Member

All members voted to correct the record as recommended.  The 
following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC-2012-
04500:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 Sep 2012, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, HQ USAF/JAA, dated 7 Dec 2012.
    Exhibit C.  Letters, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 Dec 2012.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, Counsel, dated 11 Jan 2013, w/atch
    Exhibit E.  Letter, HQ USAF/A1P, dated 22 Jan 2013.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Holm Center/CC, dated 22 Jan 2013.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 4 Mar 2013.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, Counsel, dated 11 Mar 2013.




                                   
                                   Panel Chair