RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-03266
		
	 		COUNSEL:  NONE

			HEARING DESIRED:  YES

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.	The Letter of Reprimand (LOR), issued on 5 June 2012, be 
removed from his records.

2.	References to the LOR in section III and the “5” rating in 
section IV of the DD Form 785, Record of Disenrollment from 
Officer Candidate – Type Training, be reviewed and removed from 
his record. 

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was falsely accused of physical violence and perpetuating 
falsehoods.  In the rebuttal to the LOR, he clearly and 
concisely explained his innocence.  While he provided evidence 
to the contrary, the LOR was upheld and placed in his file.  He 
appeared before a hearing officer who found that he did not 
commit the heinous allegations.  He believes it is unjust to 
have an LOR in his record for an allegation he did not commit.

Section III of the DD Form 785 states he received an LOR for 
being involved in a physical altercation with a female cadet and 
making false statements.  It also states he was undergoing a 
Hearing Review but was disenrolled for academic deficiency prior 
to sanctions for misconduct.  He believes this is unjust due to 
the fact the hearing officer found that he did not commit the 
allegations.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides DD Form 785, 
the LOR and his response and the Findings of Fact.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is a former cadet of the United States Air Force 
Academy (USAFA).  He attended the USAFA from 23 June 2011 
through 4 September 2012 when he was involuntarily disenrolled 
due to academic deficiency.  

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

USAFA/JA recommends denial.  On 15 June 2012, the applicant 
received a Letter of Reprimand after an investigation disclosed 
multiple altercations with a female cadet, unauthorized sexual 
activity with that cadet and perpetuating a falsehood by telling 
leadership that she was abducted and assaulted by multiple 
assailants at the USAFA.  On 22 June 2012, disenrollment action 
was initiated via the Hearing Officer process in accordance with 
AFI 36-2020, Disenrollment – United States Air Force Academy. 

While waiting for the Hearing Officer Report and transcript to 
be drafted, the applicant's case of academic deficiency was 
heard before the Academic Review Committee (ARC) on 26 August 
2013 [sic].  That panel voted 5-0 to recommend disenrollment for 
applicant's academic deficiencies.  On 29 August 2012, the 
Hearing Officer finalized his report and by a preponderance of 
the evidence found that the applicant did engage in a physical 
altercation with the female cadet on 21 June 2013 [sic] and that 
the applicant had engaged in unauthorized sexual activity at 
USAFA with that cadet on multiple occasions.  However, he did 
not substantiate the other allegations by a preponderance of the 
evidence.  

On 30 August 2012, the disenrollment authority, USAFA/CC, 
concurred with the ARC recommendation for disenrollment based on 
the applicant's academic deficiencies.  He was disenrolled based 
on the ARC versus the Hearing Officer action. The USAFA/CC 
considered the entries in the applicant's cadet personnel file 
using a "whole person" concept and assigned a DD Form 785 rating 
of "5” Definitely Not Recommended in section IV (Evaluation To 
Be Considered in the Future for Determining Acceptability for 
Other Officer Training).  The applicant received an Honorable 
characterization discharge.

The applicant alleges that he was falsely accused of heinous 
allegations to include allegations of physical violence and 
perpetuating a falsehood.  He is of the position that he clearly 
and concisely explained his innocence in his LOR response and 
that the Hearing Officer found that he did not commit the 
heinous allegations and therefore it is unjust to have a LOR for 
allegations he did not commit.

AFI 36-2907, Administrative Counseling’s, Admonitions, and 
Reprimands states counseling, admonition and reprimands are 
quality force management tools that are available to 
supervisors, superiors and commanders and when properly used, 
they help maintain established Air Force standards and enhance 
mission accomplishment.  In a memorandum dated 16 August 2013, 
the Air Officer Commanding (AOC) of the applicant's squadron and 
issuer of applicant's LOR explained all of her reasoning behind 
keeping the LOR in effect after having considered the 
applicant's response to the LOR as well as the Hearing Officer's 
findings.  The AOC thoroughly investigated the infractions 
listed in the LOR and then drafted the LOR according to the 
applicable the requirements of AFI 36-2907. 

The applicant had the right to counsel throughout the LOR, ARC, 
and Hearing Officer processes.  In fact, the applicant was 
represented an Area Defense Counsels (ADC) stationed at the 
USAFA.  Counsel was made available to the applicant to provide a 
professional opinion with regard to the election of the rights 
exercised by the applicant in the presentation of his case.  
Counsel was also available to consult about what written matters 
to present in response to each administrative action initiated 
with the applicant as the respondent.  While the applicant 
argues that he provided evidence that “clearly and concisely 
explain [his] innocence" and that the Hearing Officer found the 
applicant "did not commit the heinous allegations'', this is not 
entirely factual. 

As stated above, the AOC considered all of this and still 
determined it appropriate to keep the LOR in place.  Further, 
the Hearing Officer is charged with investigating whether 
allegations as drafted in the Hearing Officer Letter of 
Notification occurred by a preponderance of the evidence.  When 
a Hearing Officer fails to substantiate an allegation in a 
Hearing Officer case it does not necessarily mean that the 
respondent did not commit said allegations, but rather that the 
standard of showing the applicant committed those allegations by 
a preponderance of the evidence could not be established.  While 
the LOR no longer exists as a UIF was not established and the 
applicant's cadet personnel file is destroyed after 90 days from 
his date of disenrollment if there are no collateral consequence 
matters, the references to the LOR in the DD Form 785 are still 
appropriate. 

Finally, while the applicant requests that his numerical rating 
of "5" on the DD Form 785 be reconsidered, the applicant's 
arguments are without merit and there is no new information that 
would change the chain-of-command's position that the applicant 
receive a "5" rating, we do not find it appropriate to have his 
DD Form 785 rating reconsidered.

The applicant was afforded all appropriate rights, including his 
right to counsel and due process, throughout the LOR, ARC, and 
Hearing Officer processes.  He was given multiple opportunities 
to succeed at the Academy.  He opted not to succeed by 
continuing in a pattern of misconduct where by breaking USAFA 
cadet rules and regulations.  There is nothing improper in the 
manner in which his case was ultimately resolved.  There are no 
errors or injustices on the DD Form 785.  Section III and 
Section IV of the document are based on factual descriptions of 
the applicant's case documenting his cadet record while at the 
USAFA.

The complete USAFA/JA evaluation, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the 
applicant on 30 August 2013, for review and comment within 
30 days (Exhibit D).  As of this date, this office has received 
no 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 an error or injustice with regard 
to the applicant’s request to remove the Letter of Reprimand and 
the “5” rating on the DD Form 785.  We took careful notice of 
the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the 
case.  Other than 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 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.

4.  Notwithstanding the above, we believe some relief is 
warranted.  According to the Findings of Fact dated 29 August 
2012, the Hearing Officer noted the evidence failed to show by a 
preponderance of evidence that the applicant intentionally 
perpetuated a falsehood.  Since the DD Form 785 was accomplished 
on 12 September 2012, well after the Findings of Fact were 
published, we believe the statement “…and making a false 
statement” should be stricken from the DD Form 785.  Therefore, 
we recommend the applicant’s records be corrected only 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 the 
DD Form 785, Record of Disenrollment From Officer Candidate – 
Type Training dated 10 September 2012, be amended by deleting 
the words “and making a false statement.”  

________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2013-03266 in Executive Session on 22 April 2014, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:


The following documentary evidence 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 20 Aug 13, w/atchs.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Aug 13.