RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-01161

		COUNSEL:  GREGORY C. GRAF

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES


________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His records be corrected to reflect that he was not 
disenrolled from the United States Air Force Academy (USAFA), 
and that the Disenrollment Hearing be removed from his record.

2.  His final grade in Astronautics (Astro) 310 be corrected to 
reflect a passing score.  

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

1.  His dismissal from the USAFA was not factually substantiated 
and he was the victim of a conspiracy to cover-up the culture of 
alcohol abuse at the academy.    

2.  He was denied due process in his Disenrollment Hearing 
because he was only given four days’ notice of the hearing 
instead of the required seven days.  

3.  The Superintendent of the USAFA relied on a biased and 
incomplete report from the Investigating Officer (IO), failed to 
consider newly discovered evidence and mitigating evidence, and 
subsequently provided incorrect statements to a Congressional 
inquiry.

4.  His grades were changed following the initiation of his 
disciplinary proceedings to ensure he would not receive a 
graduation diploma.  

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 29 Jun 06, the applicant attended the United States Air Force 
Academy (USAFA) in cadet status.
On 28 Apr 10, the applicant’s Vice Commandant initiated action 
to discharge the applicant from cadet status.  The specific 
reasons for the action were as follows:

	a.  The applicant provided alcohol to cadets under the 
legal drinking age of 21, as evidenced by an Article 15, dated 
19 Apr 10. 

	b.  Two false official statements, as evidenced by an 
Article 15, dated 19 Apr 10. 

	c.  Soliciting another cadet to make a false official 
statement, as evidenced by an Article 15, dated 19 Apr 10. 

	d.  Consuming alcohol while prohibited, as evidenced by and 
AF Form 1168, Statement Of Suspect/Witness Complainant, dated 7 
Apr 10, and an Air Force Cadet Wing (AFCW) Form 10, dated 6 Apr 
10. 

	e.  Violating a no contact order, as evidenced by an AFCW 
Form 10, dated 6 Apr 10 and; 

	f.  Having unprofessional relationships with underclass 
cadets, as evidenced by an AFCW Form 10, dated 6 Apr 10.

The applicant was advised that he may present his case to a 
Hearing Officer, receive (if he choose to present his case to a 
Hearing Officer) all the rights of AFI 36-2020 and may use 
military witnesses provided the request for witnesses is timely 
submitted and, in the opinion of the Hearing Officer, the 
witnesses can present relevant evidence that cannot be 
reasonably received though videotape, deposition, interrogation, 
or sworn or unsworn written statement.  The applicant was also 
advised of his right to submit statements in his own behalf, and 
waive the aforementioned rights.  Lastly, the applicant was 
informed that he was to reply, in writing, no later than 5 May 
10, stating the rights he choose.  If he decided to waive the 
board proceedings, all matters he wanted reviewed by the 
Commandant and/or Superintendent were to be submitted on 5 May 
10.

On 5 May 10, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the action 
and invoked his right to a hearing before a Hearing Officer.  He 
elected not to submit statements on his behalf and not to submit 
a Resignation in Lieu of Disenrollment.

On 13 May 10, the Hearing Officer notified the applicant of the 
time, place and particulars of the hearing (17 May 10, 1300 
hours, USAFA/JA Courtroom), the specific allegations in his 
case, the names of expected witnesses, and the documents she 
planned to consider at the hearing.


On 17 May 10, the hearing convened and on 25 May 10, the Hearing 
Officer found by a preponderance of the evidence, the applicant 
committed each of the alleged offenses.

On 27 May 10, the applicant was served a copy of the findings 
and a verbatim transcript of the proceedings.

On 4 Jun 10, the applicant appealed the findings and requested 
that he be retained.  He submitted written matters for the 
Commandant and Superintendent to consider regarding their 
retention/disenrollment decision.

On 18 Jun 10, the Superintendent directed the applicant be 
disenrolled from the USAFA due to misconduct, furnished a 
general (under honorable conditions) discharge, and recommended 
to the SECAF that he be ordered to monetarily reimburse the 
government for the cost of his Academy education.  
On 8 Sep 10, the Secretary of the Air Force (SECAF) approved the 
Superintendent’s Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) 
recommendation and ordered the applicant to reimburse the 
government for the cost of his education. 

On 8 Aug 12, SAF/IGQ responded to the applicant’s request for 
their office to review his case informing him that they have no 
authority to overturn the disenrollment decision by the USAFA. 
Additionally, they informed the applicant that they reviewed the 
process used by the USAFA and found no discrepancies.  Lastly, 
they reviewed the calculation of his Astro 310 grade and 
concurred that his final grade was calculated correctly, without 
regard to other disciplinary processes going on at the time.

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

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

USAFA/JA recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an 
error or injustice.  The applicant was afforded due process at 
his disenrollment hearing and additionally, the Secretary of the 
Air Force Personnel Council reviewed the case and decided based 
on the applicant’s substantiated misconduct, he should 
monetarily reimburse the government for the cost of his USAFA 
education.

The applicant contends that his disenrollment hearing was 
conducted without giving him a seven day written notice.  In 
accordance with AFI 36-2020, Disenrollment of United States Air 
Force Academy Cadets, paragraph 25.4 only states that before a 
hearing, the Hearing Officer provides a cadet with written 
notice of the time and place of the hearing, allegations he/she 
is charged with investigating, witnesses he/she intends to call, 
and documents he/she intends to consider.  All of these due 
process measures were complied with in the notification the 
applicant received from the Hearing Officer.

The applicant may have confused the seven day notice requirement 
with the timeframe referenced in the notification letter in 
accordance with AFI 36-2020, Attachment 4, which allows for 
seven days for the applicant to consult with civilian counsel 
regarding election of rights they are to make in the hearing 
officer venue.  The applicant was put on notice on 28 Apr 10 
that he had until 5 May 10, in compliance with the seven day 
requirement.

The applicant through his counsel identified the witness 
statements that the Hearing Officer considered as being unsworn 
statements.  This is not true, in fact, the AF IMTs 1168, 
Statement of Suspect/Witness/Complainant, of the witnesses as 
well as the applicant, clearly indicate that they were sworn 
statements.  Furthermore, all of the allegations set forth in 
the Article 15 process were found to be legally sufficient.  

While the applicant and his counsel contend that the applicant 
was disenrolled as a consequence of him being a “whistleblower” 
due to a “cover-up” of an active conspiracy, it is important to 
note that the other cadets involved were held accountable for 
their infractions as well.  Multiple agencies have conducted 
investigations in regard to inappropriate alcohol consumption 
and abuse by the USAFA baseball team and, as a result, new team 
rules were implemented and closer supervision of the program was 
put into effect.  Nevertheless, there is no nexus between the 
team’s culture and the substantiated allegations of misconduct 
that lead to the applicant’s disenrollment.

As for the applicant’s request pertaining to his astronautics 
grade, according to DoD Directive 1322.22, paragraph 4.5.5 and 
USAFA Instruction 36-3533, Requirements for Graduation, in order 
to graduate from the USAFA and receive a 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.  Based on these 
authorities, even if the applicant’s grade in Astro 310 was 
changed to a passing grade, due to his misconduct, he would 
still not earn his degree.  The applicant was deficient in both 
commissioned service and leadership and conduct.  While the 
applicant argues that if his Astro 310 grade was changed to a 
passing grade, he would have completed all necessary work for a 
degree from the USAFA, an adequate academic record is not the 
sole basis for determining who is awarded a degree from the 
USAFA.  The alcohol related misconduct is the basis of the 
applicant’s disenrollment and a misconduct based disenrollment 
is what prevents him from being awarded a degree from the USAFA. 

A complete copy of the USAFA/JA evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the 
applicant’s counsel on 2 May 13 for review and comment within 30 
days.  As of this date, no response has been received by this 
office (Exhibit D).

________________________________________________________________

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 
notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the 
merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and 
recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility 
and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the 
applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  
Therefore, 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 the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the 
application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2013-01161 in Executive Session on 14 Jan 14, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
 
	                 , Panel Chair
	                 , Member
	                 , Member
The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2013-01161 was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 4 Mar 13, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, USAFA/JA, dated 16 Apr 13.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Dec 13.




                                   
                                   Panel Chair



6