RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-00294

			COUNSEL:  NONE

			HEARING DESIRED:  YES

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  The language on his DD Form 785, Record of Disenrollment 
from Officer Candidate – Type Training, be changed.  

2.  The debt established, approximately $107,340.00, for his 
United States Air Force Academy (USAFA) education be rescinded.  

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

1.  The wording in his DD Form 785 is false and deceitful.  The 
procedures for completing a DD Form 785 are contained in AFI36-
2012, Record of Disenrollment from Officer Candidate-Type 
Training – DD Form785, and are quite specific; however, his DD 
Form 785 contains falsehoods and is written in a highly 
inflammatory and prejudicial manner.  The statements indicating 
he was involuntarily disenrolled for two violations of the Cadet 
Disciplinary System: “for having an unprofessional relationship 
with a female fourth-class cadet” and “for maintaining an off 
base residence,” are true.  The statement “In addition, he was 
on aptitude and conduct probation,” is false.  He was placed on 
aptitude and conduct probation because he was found guilty of 
fraternization and having the off base house.  This statement as 
written implies that he was already on aptitude and conduct 
probation and yet he still decided to date a freshman and lease 
a house off base.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  It 
is a seemingly small grammatical error, but the implications are 
huge.  He thinks that it was worded that way to make him appear 
in the most negative light possible.  

2.  He objects to the Air Officer Commanding’s (AOC) statement 
“he seems to show a lack of moral compass by blatantly breaking 
rules,” for several reasons.  The statement is nonspecific in 
reference to the offenses committed, but it implies that there 
is a pattern of offenses.  There is not.  Secondly, if this were 
a court of law, that statement would most certainly be deemed 
inadmissible as being hearsay.  Lastly, “lack of moral compass” 
is a highly inflammatory buzzword statement used to denigrate 
and belittle.  Regarding the part of the statement pertaining to 
“blatantly breaking the rules,” he admittedly broke two rules, 
neither of which he would call blatant.  Breaking the honor 
code, DUI, cheating or using drugs are certainly blatant.  He is 
not guilty of any of those offenses.  He had one LOC his 
sophomore year because he had a refrigerator in his room.  
Again, the writer of the remarks section used words designed to 
be as inflammatory as possible.  

3.  His cumulative grade point average (GPA) was 2.40, 
cumulative military performance average (MPA) was 2.73, and 
cumulative physical education average (PEA) was 2.08.  An MPA of 
2.73 is impossible for a cadet that would have already been on 
aptitude and conduct probation prior to being found guilty of 
dating a Cadet 4th Class (C4C) and maintaining an off base 
residence.  He arrived at the Air Force Academy as a 313-pound, 
all-state offensive lineman.  He turned down a scholarship to a 
Southeastern Conference (SEC) university to attend the Air Force 
Academy.  Most of his MPA hits were due to his weight checks 
after leaving the football team, not because he was guilty of 
blatantly breaking rules. 

4.  Additionally, he objects to the statement that he “has 
incurred a two-year Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) but 
should not be considered for future officer training.”  If the 
conviction for having an off base residence is vacated, he would 
be down to 110 demerits and would no longer be considered for 
disenrollment and he would graduate from the Air Force Academy.  
But he no longer wants to attend the Air Force Academy.  The Air 
Force Academy acted poorly and without honor.  An institution is 
only as strong as its people.  If the AOC is the best the Air 
Force has to offer, then he thinks he will try the Army or Navy.  
The AOC took all the power available to him and used it to 
destroy his life, his ultimate goal of getting him disenrolled 
and having to reimburse the government over $100,000., being 
attained.  It was an absolute abuse of power and manipulation of 
the system.  

5.  In a perfect world, his records would be changed and he 
would be found highly recommended for commissioning in the Air 
Force.  It was his dream since he was 14 years old, the year his 
grandfather died, to graduate from the Air Force Academy and fly 
for his country.  He would still like to have that option though 
he is sure he will not.  He will serve the two years enlisted if 
need be, but he definitely wants to have the office of the SECAF 
rescind the order requiring him to reimburse the government 
$107,340.  Unfortunately, he does not have the money and in 
today's economy, he does not know when he will have that kind of 
money.

In support of his request, the applicant provides his personal 
statement, DD Form 785, witness statements, a copy of a letter 
written to the Secretary of the Air Force in his behalf, and 
email correspondence.  

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

According to available records, the applicant entered USAFA on 
28 June 2007 and was released on 13 February 2010.  

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

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

1.  USAFA/JA states they recommend denial of the applicant's 
request to change the language and numerical rating on his DD 
Form 785; however, they concur with the applicant that his MPA 
and GPA are inaccurate.  The MPA and GPA should have been based 
on calculations on the date of his disenrollment.  The numerical 
rating should not be changed as it was assigned by the 
Superintendent after having considered the circumstances 
surrounding the applicant's misconduct along with all of the 
other entries in the applicant's personnel folder and the 
proposed DD Form 785 language was approved by the Superintendent 
as well.  

2.  On 28 June 2007, the applicant entered the USAF Academy 
(USAFA) to begin basic cadet training.  On 4 November 2009, the 
applicant was placed on conduct and aptitude probation after he 
admitted to engaging in an unprofessional relationship with a 
female fourth-class cadet and maintaining an off-base residence.  
The Commandant of Cadets initiated a Hearing Officer review to 
determine the facts and the applicant's possible disenrollment.  
The applicant waived his right to a formal Hearing Officer 
review and elected to submit written matters in support of his 
request for retention.  On 15 December 2009, the Commandant 
considered the applicant's matters and elected to forward the 
case to the USAFA Superintendent with a recommendation that the 
applicant be disenrolled and given a general, under honorable 
conditions discharge.  On 15 January 2010, the Superintendent 
considered the recommendation of the Commandant and supported 
the disenrollment but with an honorable rather than a general, 
under honorable conditions discharge characterization.  The 
applicant received an honorable discharge characterization and 
was assigned a rating of “5 - Definitely not Recommended for 
Future Officer Training” on the DD Form 785.  

3.  On 13 February 2010, the USAFA Superintendent, after having 
considered the applicant's written matters regarding how he 
would like to fulfill his Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC), 
recommended to the Secretary of the Air Force (SAF) that the 
applicant be sent to enlisted active duty for a period of two 
years in fulfillment of his ADSC.  However, on 3 May 2010, the 
SAF determined the applicant should be ordered to monetarily 
reimburse the United States Government for the cost of his 
education expenses incurred while at USAFA.  The applicant was 
ordered to pay $107,340.  

4.  While they are unable to address or remedy the applicant's 
request to have his SAF ordered monetary recoupment action 
rescinded, they are able to address his concerns with his DD 
Form 785.  In this case, section III of the DD Form 785 
correctly states the circumstances surrounding the applicant's 
factual situation at the time of his disenrollment from USAFA.  
The applicant was in fact involuntarily disenrolled due to his 
own misconduct.  The section IV remarks are a continuation of 
the comments in section III.  Though the applicant repeatedly 
discusses his previous athletic probation in his matters, it is 
only his conduct and aptitude probation at issue.  The applicant 
was placed on a six-month probation for his conduct and aptitude 
issues on 4 November 2009.  He was never removed from that 
probation from 4 November 2009, until the day he was disenrolled 
on 15 January 2010.  Therefore, it is a factual statement that 
the applicant was on aptitude and conduct probation at the time 
of his disenrollment.  

5.  Next, the applicant takes issue with his Air Officer 
Commanding (AOC), Major P’s, assessment of him as a future 
officer candidate when he commented that the applicant “seems to 
show a lack of moral compass by blatantly breaking rules.”· This 
was the assessment of the applicant's immediate commander, on 
the USAFA Form O-299 he accomplished on 12 November 2009.  It 
was not Major P's recommendation that the final DD Form 785 
include that assessment.  That was the suggested DD Form 785 
language for the applicant's DD Form 785 as proposed by the 
USAFA Deputy Staff Judge Advocate, Lt Col R.  It was approved by 
the USAFA Superintendent in the disenrollment staff package.  
Those quotes were not selected because the Deputy Staff Judge  
Advocate was seeking highly flammable and prejudicial language 
meant to denigrate and belittle the applicant, but rather 
because those quotes capture the immediate commander’s 
assessment of the applicant that fit in the limited space on the 
DD Form 785.  The processing of the applicant's case and DD Form 
785 were handled no differently than any other cadet disenrolled 
from USAFA.

6.  The applicant states that it is impossible for him to have a 
cumulative MPA of 2.73 based on his being on conduct and 
aptitude probations for his misconduct.  Though not necessarily 
impossible, they concur that his MPA is significantly lower than 
reported on his DD Form 785.  The GPA, MPA, and PEA calculations 
for the applicant as reported on his DD Form 785 were as of 
18 December 2009.  This was at the end of the Fall 2009 semester 
where final grades and MPA scores were still being finalized.  
Therefore, the applicant received the benefit of having his MPA 
reported on the DD Form 785 as of the end of the Spring 2009 
semester, which did not account for his conduct and aptitude 
probation and over 200 demerits that occurred during the Fall 
2009 semester.  When they assessed the MPA calculation as of the 
date of his disenrollment in January 2010, his MPA was in fact 
2.51.  Further, his GPA after all of his Fall 2009 grades posted 
was in fact 2.31 vice 2.40.  Therefore, they concur with those 
factual inaccuracies as of the date of applicant's disenrollment 
and do not object to his GPA and MPA being adjusted to reflect 
the actual numbers as of the date he was disenrolled.  The 
applicant's PEA as reported on his DD Form 785 is accurate as of 
the date of his disenrollment as it was 2.08 on 
18 December 2009, as well as on 15 January 2010.  

7.  The last point the applicant argues regarding his DD Form 
785 is that the numerical rating of “5” is not the appropriate 
rating as he: “broke no laws, did not violate the honor code, 
did not drink while underage nor supply alcohol to underage 
persons, did not leave the base without permission nor did he 
use drugs, to include marijuana or spice.”  The guidance from 
AFI 36-2012, states a  “5” rating should be assigned to those 
whose aptitude or personal behavior have consistently failed to 
meet the minimum standards.  While the applicant states he 
believes a “5” rating is inappropriate because he does not have 
a documented history of serious problems as shown by repeated 
placement on probation or involvement in some illegal or immoral 
activity, such as involvement with drugs (to include marijuana), 
sexual misbehavior, and/or indifference to training, those are 
not the only criteria for command to use in determining whether 
a “5” rating is appropriate or not.  Deficiency in conduct or 
aptitude is also a criteria for determining if a “5”·rating is 
appropriate and the applicant did have evidence of conduct and 
aptitude issues that ultimately resulted in his being placed on 
conduct and aptitude probation.  The applicant's entire chain-
of-command supported the “5” rating based on his entire record.  
The USAFA Superintendent assigns the DD Form 785 rating of all 
cadets who leave USAFA.  He has the benefit of assessing the 
egregiousness of each USAFA cadet case when they depart USAFA 
and determining an appropriate rating.  Based on the applicant's 
entire record, the USAFA Superintendent determined a “5” rating 
to be the appropriate rating in this case.  

8.  The applicant was held accountable for his misconduct as 
USAFA would hold any cadet accountable for misconduct.  The 
applicant acknowledges that as a cadet third class, he visited 
several cadet off-base residences and that he knew of at least 
ten such off-base residences at the time of his disenrollment.  
As a military member, their expectation would have been for him 
to share his knowledge of these off-base residences so those 
cadets could be held accountable for their misconduct as the 
applicant was held accountable.  However, to date, the applicant 
takes the position that he is not inclined to name the cadets 
who allegedly have these off-base residences even though he 
acknowledges in his own matters that paragraph 2.3, of 
Commandant of Cadets Instruction 51-201, states any individual 
who has knowledge of misconduct should contact the Air Officer 
Commanding (AOC), Academy Military Trainer (AMT), Cadet Squadron 
Commander, or any permanent party personnel or proper 
military/civilian law enforcement authorities.  They will share 
the applicant's concerns regarding the alleged misconduct of 
others in the Cadet Wing with the command in the Cadet Wing; 
however, without cooperation from the applicant and/or other 
witnesses to this alleged misconduct, USAFA's ability to 
investigate is limited.  The applicant also acknowledges that he 
received counsel from his parents to avoid engaging in an 
unprofessional relationship with a cadet - fourth class and to 
avoid maintaining an off-base residence while a USAFA cadet yet 
he failed to heed that advice.  

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

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

1.  In his response, the applicant indicates he disputes 
USAFA/JA’s recommendations concerning his request to change the 
language on the DD Form 785.  He again renews his protests that 
the statements on the DD Form 785 are misleading and highly 
inflammable.  He suggests using words that “paint an accurate 
word picture that depicts events as they occurred.”  The 
Secretary of the Air Force (SAF) decided otherwise on the 
recommendation from the USAFA that he serve two years enlisted 
duty to fulfill his ADSC.  If the SAF read any part of his 
package it would have been the DD Form 785.  It is not 
unreasonable for him to ask that the form be both fair and 
factual as opposed to misleading and inflammatory.  

2.  He further expands on points mentioned by USAFA/JA as 
follows:  

	a.  His intention in “repeatedly discussing his athletic 
probation” was to show that he had no history of behavioral 
issues prior to his admission of guilt. His prior academic 
issues were short lived and corrected.  

	b.  In the matter of his GPA, MPA, and PEA, his grades 
suffered because while going through the interrogations as to 
whether or not he would still be a cadet at the academy, he was 
told not to purchase textbooks.  Additionally, his grades 
suffered as he dealt with the issues of his girlfriend having a 
mental breakdown with suicidal inclinations, the recommendation 
for his disenrollment, and the fact that he was removed from the 
squadron and was in a solitary type confinement for the rest of 
his time at the academy.  

	c.  Regarding the USAFA/JA expectation that he would 
contact the military staff to inform on cadets whom he knew to 
be guilty of misconduct, he states there are two types of 
persons that tear apart the fabric and cohesiveness of a 
military unit, thieves and informants.  The majority of the 
persons he knew who were guilty of misconduct have graduated and 
those that have not graduated will do so in just a few months.  
He did report on a cadet for having unauthorized off-base 
employment and then subsequently breaking the honor code by 
lying to him when she denied having the job.  However, there was 
no action taken.  The cadet he reported on won the cadet 
squadron commander of the year award at graduation.  Enforcement 
is evidently arbitrary and capricious. 

The applicant’s complete response 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 error or injustice.  After careful 
consideration of the applicant’s request, to include his 
rebuttal comments, and the available evidence of record, we are 
not persuaded that corrective action is warranted.  The facts 
and opinions stated in the advisory opinion appear to be based 
on the evidence of record and have not been adequately rebutted 
by the applicant.  Absent persuasive evidence the applicant’s DD 
Form 785, Record of Disenrollment from Officer Candidate – Type 
Training, and his subsequent debt were improperly established, 
we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this 
application.  The Board notes USAFA/JA concurs that the GPA and 
MPA calculation are factually inaccurate as of the date of 
applicant's disenrollment and do not object to his GPA and MPA 
being adjusted to reflect the actual numbers as of the date he 
was disenrolled.  However, we see no benefit to the applicant in 
adjusting the GPA and MPA calculations to render significantly 
lower calculations than reported as of the date his DD Form 785 
was accomplished.  In view of the above and 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 issue(s) 
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 this application 
in Executive Session on 24 October 2013, under the provisions of 
AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member


The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR 
Docket Number BC-2013-00294:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 Dec 2012, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, USAFA/JA, dated 21 Feb 2013, w/atchs.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Feb 2013.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 27 Mar 2013.