RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-02158
		
	 		COUNSEL:  NONE

			HEARING DESIRED:  YES

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He receive his diploma from the United States Air Force Academy 
(USAFA).

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He completed and passed all required classes to receive his 
degree from the USAFA. His disenrollment from the USAFA was 
excessive and malicious.  The ruling officer in his case made 
his decision before he had the opportunity to present anything 
during the hearing.

The primary allegations against him were that he had an 
unprofessional relationship and that he attempted to obstruct 
justice to keep himself out of trouble.  During the findings of 
facts, they found there was no evidence to suggest that he 
attempted to interfere with the investigation.  Additionally, he 
was completely forthright on all accounts and was as helpful as 
possible with the investigation.

Cadet offenses are handled under the Cadet Disciplinary System.  
Unprofessional relationships are considered a Category IV 
offense and hold a maximum punishment of 110 demerits, 99 
confinements, 6 months restriction and revocation of class 
privileges.  Although he had already “self-rehabilitated” he 
received and served this maximum punishment.  After serving this 
punishment, he received a second punishment of disenrollment, 
denial of his educational degree and a bill for $168,423.  

He has since been allowed to serve three years enlisted time in 
lieu of the $168,423.  Education is essential to all enlisted 
careers, especially for acquisition professionals.  He has not 
been able to further his education since the Academy.  He has 
been unable to find schools that will accept him into a Master’s 
program without a certified degree.  Furthermore, he has not 
been able to find a school that will allow him to transfer four 
years’ worth of credits for a Bachelor of Science.  

His lapse of judgment was completely out of character and not 
the standard.  That being said, his offense was serious and did 
not follow the standards required for officers.  He fully 
understands why the military does not find him fit to serve as 
an officer in the USAF.  However, he does not feel that his 
actions should hinder his career as an enlisted airman.  Denying 
his degree is excessive punishment for his actions.  

Since his enlistment, he has strived to be the very best in his 
career field.  He has earned his contracting warrant much 
earlier in his career and a much higher value than typical 
contracting officers.  He has administered and awarded contracts 
totaling over hundreds of millions that directly support the 
warfighter.  He has received the Outstanding Contracting Airman 
of the Year at the group level, Airman of the Quarter at the 
group level and the John L. Levitow Award at Airman Leadership 
School.  The one thing holding him back is his degree.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a personal 
statement, Findings of Fact, statement from his defense counsel 
and the hearing transcript.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant was a cadet at the USAFA Air Force Academy from 
26 June 2006 through 13 May 2013.  He was involuntarily 
disenrolled for misconduct.  He received a Letter of Reprimand 
for making a false official statement and having an 
unprofessional relationship with a fourth-class cadet.  He was 
scheduled for commissioning on 26 May 2010.  

He enlisted in the Air Force on 22 November 2010 and served as a 
contracting journeyman until his honorable separation on 
21 November 2013. 

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this case are 
contained in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of 
primary responsibility and listed at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

USAFA/JA recommends denial.  The applicant received a Letter of 
Reprimand for having an unprofessional relationship with a 
female fourth-class cadet in the fall of 2009; for making a 
false official statement on or about 3 October 2009 when he said 
that he did not have an unprofessional relationship; and for 
attempting to obstruct and interfere with an investigation by 
telling the female fourth class cadet not to tell personnel at 
the USAFA, to include the Office of Special Investigations about 
their unprofessional relationship.  

On 29 March 2010, he was notified that the Commandant of Cadets 
was beginning a Hearing Officer disenrollment action based on 
the applicant’s aforementioned actions, in addition to, an 
allegation he was absent from his place of duty without 
authorization on 10 February 2010 and that he failed to disclose 
that he was cited for speeding that same day.  The applicant 
elected to have the allegations heard by a hearing officer on 
4 April 2010.  The hearing officer found by a preponderance of 
the evidence considered that the applicant did engage in an 
unprofessional relationship, did make a false official statement 
and that he was absent from his squadron without proper 
authority.  However, the hearing officer did not substantiate 
that the applicant obstructed or interfered with an 
investigation, nor did he substantiate that the applicant failed 
to violate any regulations by failing to report his speeding 
citation. 

The Commandant and Superintendent considered the hearing 
officers report, the verbatim transcript and all the applicant’s 
matters prior to making their retention/disenrollment decision.  
The Superintendent directed the applicant be disenrolled from 
the USAFA and forwarded the case to the Secretary of the Air 
Force (SecAF) to determine whether the applicant should have 
served enlisted active duty for three years, monetarily recoup 
the government the cost of his advanced education or be granted 
an educational delay to seek commission via AFROTC in 
fulfillment of his active duty service commitment.  The SecAF 
took action on the case and ordered the applicant to serve 
enlisted active duty for a period of three years on 22 November 
2010.

DoD Directive 1322.22 paragraph 4.5.2 along with paragraph 2.1 
of USAF Instruction 26-3533, Requirements for Graduation, states 
that in order to graduate from USAFA and be awarded a Bachelor 
of Science degree, a cadet must demonstrate an aptitude for 
commissioned service and leadership, be satisfactory in conduct, 
and meet all military training, physical education and academic 
requirements.  In addition to these authorities, a cadet must 
demonstrate an aptitude for commissioned service and leadership, 
display acceptable conduct, maintain proficiency in physical 
education and the commissioning education program and meet all 
requirements for a Bachelor of Science Program.  Based on these 
authorities, even with the applicant’s sufficient grades and 
having passed all of his required classes, that is not all that 
is required to earn a USAFA diploma.  

The applicant was disenrolled from the USAFA on 28 May 2010 for 
three substantiated allegations of military misconduct.  The 
authorities are clear that you must demonstrate an aptitude for 
commissioned service and leadership and be satisfactory in 
conduct.  The applicant was deficient in both of these 
requirements necessary to receive a USAFA diploma and be deemed 
a USAFA graduate.  The applicant argues that he completed all 
the necessary work for a degree from the USAFA.  While that may 
be true for a civilian institution of higher learning, and 
adequate academic record is not the sole basis for determining 
who is awarded a degree from the USAFA.  

While the applicant was not awarded a degree from the USAFA, the 
credits earned may be transferred and applied to another 
institution of higher learning as he seeks to obtain a degree.  

The applicant was afforded due process, to include his right to 
consult with counsel, present evidence and question witnesses 
testifying at his enrollment hearing.  The basis of the 
applicant’s disenrollment is sufficient to deny his degree from 
the USAFA. 

The complete USAFA/JA evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant objects to the BCMR’s choice of expert opinion if 
looking for an unbiased opinion.  He does not feel the office 
that processed his disenrollment was the correct place to look.

He takes issue with many of the advisory writer’s statements and 
states it is ridiculous the Academy would order a hearing 
officer just to dismiss it findings and make a contradictory 
decision.  This suggests his fate was decided well before he had 
the opportunity to present his case.  He also addresses other 
issues with the advisory.

He further states he has tried to transfer his credits to 
another institution and has been unable to do so.  He also 
disagrees that he failed to comply with the requirement that he 
shows an aptitude for commissioned service and leadership.  He 
again admits his actions were not within the standards required 
of an officer; however, all of his subsequent actions were.  He 
never once denied his actions but was completely forthright and 
honest.  He served the punishment honorably and gracefully.  The 
advisory; however, does not address double jeopardy and the fact 
that he was punished twice for the same mistake.

The applicant’s complete response, with attachment, is at 
Exhibit E.   

________________________________________________________________

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 an error or injustice.  We took 
careful notice of the applicant's complete submission, to 
include his response to the Air Force office of primary 
responsibility, in judging the merits of the case. 
Notwithstanding the applicant’s view, we find insufficient 
evidence that the applicant was denied any rights to which he 
was entitled.  Additionally, we do not find the there was an 
abuse of discretionary authority or that the actions of the 
USAFA were arbitrary or capricious.  As such, we agree with 
USAFA/JA and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion 
that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or 
injustice.  We also agree that the applicant may transfer his 
educational credits to a civilian institution of higher 
learning.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find 
no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this 
application.

4.  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 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-2013-02158 in Executive Session on 18 February 2014, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2013-02158 was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 1 May 13, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Letter, Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, USAFA/JA, dated 10 Jun 13.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Jun 19
	Exhibit E.	Letter, Applicant’s Response, dated 25 Jul 13, 
              	        w/atch.