RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-01426
		
			COUNSEL: 

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His disenrollment from the United States Air Force Academy 
(USAFA) be reversed and he be reenrolled.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Through counsel, the applicant submits a 17-page brief outlining 
his background and the events that led to his disenrollment from 
the USAFA.  They contend that his disenrollment was premised on 
the arbitrary, capricious and unjustified conferral of a failing 
grade in a calculus course, after being accused of cheating, 
that his teacher concedes he otherwise would have easily passed.

He should have never been assessed a failing grade in the summer 
term of calculus.  USAF Academy Instruction 36-3534, Review and 
Disposition of Deficient Cadets, addresses the procedures for 
documenting and assessing penalties for violations of academic 
standards.  It states that when a cadet has violated academic 
standards, the decision authority will carefully review all the 
relevant evidence.  The accused cadet will be notified in 
writing and given the opportunity to respond.  Additionally, the 
matter will be referred to the Cadet Honor System for further 
proceedings.  The instruction further provided that after 
reviewing all relevant evidence, the decision authority would 
determine if there was a violation of academic standards.  This 
determination must be based on a preponderance of the credible 
evidence.

It is apparent the decision authority, i.e., the Math Department 
Chair, failed to comply with several important aspects of the 
relevant instructions procedures when deciding whether or not 
the academic standards were violated.  Most importantly, he 
failed to reach a conclusion supported by a preponderance of the 
credible evidence.  As such, the decision to fail him during the 
summer term of calculus should be reversed and with it, the 
decision to disenroll him.  There is no evidence that the 
Department Chair ever took note of the fact that two of the 
three instructors could not see if his eyes were open or shut.  
Nor is there any basis to conclude that the Department Chair 
ever paused to consider that a USAFA body established to render 
findings relating to cheating reached a decision after hearing 
from all of the witness, at least those who chose to appear and 
subject themselves to cross-examination.  Instead, he rendered a 
decision motivated by a desire to avoid offending his staff.  
The departmental politics, coupled with embarrassment that his 
department had just been victimized by a cheating scandal 
outweighed thoughtful, individualized consideration.

Additionally, had he not been subjected to disparate and 
peculiar treatment during the 2012 fall semester, his cumulative 
GPA would have been above 2.0.  This would have negated the 
basis to disenroll him.  As previously noted, each of the three 
episodes during this semester almost certainly alone was 
responsible for his cumulative GPA falling two one-hundredths of 
a point below the Academy’s 2.0 threshold for good standing.  
While it is impossible to literally prove a negative, it is a 
certainty that these three episodes, collectively, dragged him 
down below the line.  

The ARC that disenrolled him in January 2013 could have 
considered any or all these episodes and could have concluded 
that disenrollment was not required.  They should have 
considered the effect each played on his cumulative GPA.  
Instead, a 20-year-old college sophomore, with no legal or other 
adult assistance, had no possible way of knowing he could have 
brought these matters to the ARC’s attention.  

This error-by-omission can be corrected now.  He requests the 
Board step into the shoes of the ARC and render a decision that 
his overall performance and the probability of successful 
completion of academic program justify his retention at the 
USAFA and reverse the decision to disenroll him. 

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a 17-page legal 
brief, GPA charts, USAFAI 36-3534, USAFAI 36-3523 and several 
character statements.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is a former cadet who attended the USAFA from 
23 June 2011 through 6 February 2013.  His narrative reason for 
separation is listed as Secretarial Authority with service 
characterized as honorable.  

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/DF recommends denial.  The applicant met an ARC at the end 
of the summer 2012 to consider him for disenrollment.  The ARC 
recommended him for disenrollment; however, the USAFA 
Superintendent elected to retain him based on the results of his 
end of summer ARC.  He continued to struggle academically during 
the fall 2012 semester and met another ARC that convened on 
“24 January 2012.”  The ARC panel voted 5-0 to recommend the 
applicant for disenrollment.  They commented that they found he 
demonstrated manipulative and dishonest behaviors.  The 
applicant’s Air Officer Commanding (AOC) commented that the 
applicant struggled to keep his head above water.  The USAFA 
Superintendent concurred with the recommendation of the ARC and 
the applicant was disenrolled. 

The applicant alleges that he received an average grade on his 
first exam, an A on the second and then he sat for his final.  
Math 142, in fact, had three major tests and then a final exam.  
He scored a 69% (C-) on the first exam, 58% (F) on the second 
exam and 77% (C) on the third exam.

The contention that the instructor accused him of putting his 
head down on the desk in order to peek at his neighbor’s answers 
is inaccurate.  The instructor made it very clear that the 
copying occurred while he was sitting up.  The applicant never 
told his instructor that he was ill.  They only learned of this 
illness through this request.

The assertion that the Math Department decided to fail the 
applicant is not accurate.  The academic penalty assessed 
against the applicant was a zero on the final exam and not a 
grade of F in the course.  Had the applicant’s grades been 
sufficient prior to the final exam, he would have passed the 
course.  

The Math Department attempted to schedule the Wing Honor Board 
(WHB) a week earlier than it convened so that one of the 
instructors (the second instructor) that observed him cheating 
could be there.  He was not there due to his temporary duty 
assignment (TDY) to Squadron Officer’s School.  Therefore, the 
WHB did not consider all relevant evidence.  The Math Department 
Chair, however, did weigh in this instructors testimony when 
deciding whether an academic penalty was warranted.  The Math 
Department Chair met with the applicant and his mother and 
explicitly stated a preponderance of the evidence was 
sufficiently compelling.  As a result, he had an obligation to 
assess an academic penalty.  The Chair also points out that he 
has made decisions contrary to the recommendation of his faculty 
on numerous occasions. 

The applicant implies that a cumulative GPA of 2.0 is sufficient 
to avoid meeting an ARC; however, this is inaccurate.  ARCs also 
recommend cadets for disenrollment who have cumulative GPAs over 
2.0 when, for example, a cadet twice fails the same core course 
or a series of increasingly deficient number of semester GPAs 
exist.   

The applicant also contends that assessing him a failing grade 
was an arbitrary, capricious and unjustified decision.  The 
applicant’s second failure in Math 142 was because he earned a 
57.1% in the course, which falls below the 60% threshold 
necessary to pass the course.  On 12 July 2012, during the Math 
142 final examination, three separate instructors independently 
observed the applicant copying from another cadet.  After the 
first instructor observed the applicant cheating, she left the 
classroom to notify the Course Director.  While she was away, 
another instructor proctored the exam.  The second instructor 
was not informed of what the first instructor had observed.  The 
instructors learned they both observed the applicant cheating 
and asked a third instructor to watch the classroom.  Again, 
without being informed of who was suspected of cheating, the 
third instructor also reported he observed the applicant 
cheating.  

The 14 questions on the multiple choice portion of the final 
exam required calculations to determine the solution.  When the 
applicant’s final exam and scratch paper were turned in, there 
was no work related to the multiple choice questions on the 
scratch paper indicating the applicant did not attempt to solve 
any of the problems.  All of the instructors observed the 
following behavior:  The neighboring cadet would work through a 
problem and record his answer on his scantron.  The applicant 
would then look over and copy the answer onto his scantron.  Of 
the 14 multiple-choice questions, the applicants were the same 
as the neighboring cadet for 13 of the questions, even though 
seven of them were wrong.  The one answer that was different had 
originally been marked the same but was then erased and changed 
on the scantron.  Out of the 51 cadets enrolled in that course, 
no one else had more than 10 matching answers.

USAFAI 36-3534 states that decision authorities, who are the 
department heads for cadet matters, determine whether a cadet 
has violated academic standards.  When it appears there is a 
violation, the decision authority will carefully review all 
relevant evidence and, if warranted, notify the individual of 
the allegations and offer them the opportunity to respond.  The 
Head of the Department of Mathematical Sciences notified the 
applicant by letter that his final grade would be determined by 
him based on input by the instructor, course director and the 
applicant’s response, if provided.  The applicant was informed 
that he also had the right to provide written input and 
supporting documentation, if deemed appropriate.  It was further 
stated that he was highly encouraged to take advantage of this 
opportunity and provide a response.  Despite the guidance, the 
applicant provided a single paragraph as follows:

During my final exam for Math 142, I was laying my head 
down during the multiple-choice section facing my 
neighbor.  Due to the close proximity between my neighbor 
and me, and my low posture, it appeared as if I were 
cheating off of him.  It is a coincidence that many of our 
answers ended up being the same.  I did not cheat on the 
calculus final.  I had no reason to given that fact that 
my grade was high enough to pass the class the second time 
around even if I had performed poorly on the exam.  
Knowing this, I guessed many of the multiple choice 
questions as well.   

The applicant failed to address the fact that three different 
instructors observed him looking at his neighbor’s exam.  His 
behavior occurred while he was sitting up, not when his head was 
on his desk.  Further, the experts on probability and statistics 
state that the odds of having 13 out of 14 questions match 
perfectly, particularly when seven of the answers were 
incorrect, is much too the same to be explained by coincidence 
or random chance.  

In making his decision, the Department Head (decision authority) 
must determine that an individual violated academic standards 
based on a preponderance of credible evidence.  Proof beyond 
reasonable doubt is not required.  Preponderance of the evidence 
is a lower standard than proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which 
is the standard used in the Honor System.  This explains the 
different findings regarding the WHB and the academic penalty 
decision.  It is also worth note that the academic penalty 
determination is made independently of any associated honor 
proceedings.  

Next, the applicant contends he was only being recommended for 
disenrollment as a result of a failing grade during the summer 
term.  The applicant’s record required a mandatory review for 
the ARC at the end of the summer 2012 based on his repeated 
failure of the core course, Math 142 (Calculus II) and 
sequential semesters of deficient academic performance, semester 
and cumulative GPAs below 2.0.  Upon reviewing the applicant’s 
record, which is the normal process for the ARC, the ARC members 
took note of the applicant’s history of probations in conduct, 
aptitude, athletic and academic and the negative comments from 
his previous instructors.  

As an example, his fall 2011 Math 141 instructor reported that 
after he earned a D at mid-semester, he appeared more 
disillusioned with the concepts and more apathetic toward board 
work.  His spring 2012 Math 142 instructor wrote, after repeated 
reminders to schedule Extra Instruction (EI), he has attended 
zero EI sessions.  He earned an F in that course.  The 
applicant’s Chemistry 100 instructor wrote that he did minimal 
effort on the lab data sheets, receiving an F on half of them.  
The members of the ARC were gravely concerned with the pattern 
of negative behaviors, as well as, his demonstrated lack of 
aptitude (repeated failure) in a foundational core course, 
Calculus II.  The five members of the ARC unanimously 
recommended that he be disenrolled for academic deficiency. 

The applicant was afforded the opportunity to appeal in person 
and in writing:  which he did.  The ARC members reviewed and 
considered his written package and interviewed him in person.  
They also interviewed his Academic Advisor and his AOC.  The 
applicant’s academic situation was also getting worse.  His 
first semester was deficient with 1.96 GPA and the second 
semester GPA was 1.91.  Based on the totality of the applicant’s 
academic deficiencies and the ARC’s whole person concept, the 
five members again voted to recommend he be disenrolled.  

The applicant raises questions as to why he was assigned to an 
instructor’s course who accused him of cheating.  The math 
department was undermanned by five permanent party faculty 
members during the fall 2012 semester; therefore, the department 
had to leverage every available instructor.  However, this 
instructor was TDY for the first half of the semester.  This is 
important because at the mid-term progress report the applicant 
had a 65.6 (D).  Once this instructor took over the course, the 
applicant achieved a slight improvement of 67.8 (C-).  

The applicant further contends that had he not been the subject 
of disparate and peculiar treatment during the fall 2012 
semester he would not have received an unwarranted failing grade 
in calculus and his cumulative GPA would have been 2.0.  He 
alleges his Math 142 instructor treated him differently than the 
other students.  The Equal Opportunity (EO) Office initiated a 
complaint clarification on 6 February 2013.  The basis of the 
complaint was whether this instructor treated the applicant 
differently and discriminated against him due to his race and 
national origin.  The EO office found this allegation 
unsubstantiated.  The facts showed that the applicant contacted 
the instructor once via e-mail for an EI.  While the instructor 
did not respond via e-mail, he did follow-up with the applicant 
in class the next day. 

The complete USAFA/DF evaluation, with attachment, is at 
Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Through counsel, the applicant states that the Mathematics 
Department’s accusation that he cheated on the summer 2012 final 
exam, an accusation rejected by the Honor Board, was neither 
supported by a preponderance of the evidence nor did it make 
sense.  Hence, he requests the cascade of consequences that 
followed that flawed decision be reversed.

He reiterates that his cumulative GPA 1.98, was two one-
hundredths of a point below the retention threshold of 2.0.   He 
asserts that he would have surpassed this threshold had he not 
been the victim of several troubling episodes involving two 
members of the Academy’s faculty and administration.  
Accordingly, the Board should exercise its broad equitable power 
to excuse his near miss of the 2.0 GPA and direct his re-
enrollment.  

Rather than falsely admit to cheating and save his Academy 
career, he risked immediate expulsion by taking his case to the 
Honor Board, who exonerated him.  This is not only persuasive 
evidence that he did not cheat; it is also a powerful 
demonstration of his insistence, at great personal risk, of 
behaving honorably by not falsely admitting to misconduct.  When 
the Academy states academics and honor are different, they 
completely miss the point.  His willingness to run the gauntlet 
of an Honor Board is compelling proof of his truthful and 
honorable character and should trump the Academy’s flawed 
accusation to the contrary.

Counsel states the Academy has changed its position on several 
issues, specifically, the cheating accusation.  The Academy now 
asserts that the initial instructor made it clear that the 
copying occurred only when he was sitting up.  This position is 
being advanced for the first time.  Next, the name of the third 
instructor who allegedly observed him cheating had not been 
previously heard.  This instructor had not provided a written 
statement.  The Academy’s changing account of the events 
compromises the presumption of regularity.  

Additionally, the Academy asserts that it is statistically 
unlikely that his multiple-choice answers could have agreed with 
his fellow cadet unless one of them was copying from the other 
particularly in view of the fact that his answers were not 
associated with any scratch paper calculations.  As previously 
noted, his grade going into the final exam was sufficiently 
high.  He did not need a high mark in order to easily pass the 
course.  The multiple-choice portion of the exam was worth 
approximately 30% of the final exam and represented the most 
difficult portion of the exam.  Therefore, he quickly considered 
each question, eliminating all but two of the possible answers 
and then, without extended calculation, guessed between the two, 
giving himself a 50% chance of guessing correctly.

He submits the evidence supporting the Academy’s accusation of 
cheating insubstantial and largely lacking in credibility. His 
demonstrated honorable behavior should trump a weak accusation.


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 have 
thoroughly reviewed the available evidence of record pertaining 
to the applicant’s request that his disenrollment from the USAFA 
be reversed and he be reenrolled.  Through counsel, the 
applicant asserts that disenrollment was due to the USAFA 
assessing him a failing grade during the summer 2012 Math 142 
(Calculus II) course after being accused of cheating on the 
final exam.  He further argues that the decision authority, when 
considering whether or not he cheated on the exam, failed to 
comply with the instruction by not reviewing all of the 
instructions relevant procedures.  Finally, he contends the 
USAFA failed to consider the findings of the body of the USAFA, 
the Wing Honor Board, whose sole purpose is to render findings 
relating to cheating allegations.  Notwithstanding the 
applicant’s view, we find insufficient evidence that he was 
denied any rights to which he was entitled during the ARC’s 
review and findings process.  With regard to the allegation of 
cheating on his final exam, again, we find the applicant was 
afforded due process not only through the Math Department, but 
also through the Wing Honor Board, who, as counsel points-out 
found in favor of the applicant.  The applicant received a 
personal hearing with the decision authority, who explained to 
him that the preponderance of the evidence was sufficiently 
compelling to find that he had cheated on the final exam.  As a 
result, he was assessed an academic penalty for the final exam, 
not the course.  While counsel maintains the applicant’s GPA was 
merely two one-hundredths of a point below the retention 
threshold, this was the applicant’s second review before the 
ARC.  Additionally, the review was not only due to the 
applicant’s failure to attain a 2.0 GPA; the ARC was also 
mandated due to the applicant’s second failure in the same 
calculus course.  With regard to the applicant’s contention that 
he was the victim of disparate and peculiar treatment due to his 
race and national origin, we find that the Equal Opportunity 
Office conducted extensive interviews and found that the 
applicant was not denied extra instruction in calculus and the 
complaint was unsubstantiated. Based on the totality of the 
evidence before us, it appears that responsible officials 
applied appropriate standards in the conduct of the Academic 
Review Committee proceedings and disenrollment process, and we 
do not find persuasive evidence that pertinent regulations were 
violated or that the applicant was not afforded all the rights 
to which entitled at the time of disenrollment.  Additionally, 
we do not find the applicant’s disenrollment was arbitrary or 
capricious and find 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 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-2013-01426 in Executive Session on 18 June 2013, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Panel Chair
      Member
      Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2013-01426 was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 21 Mar 13, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Letter, Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, USAFA/DF, dated 24 Apr 13, w/atch.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Apr 13.
	Exhibit E.	Letter, Applicant’s Response, undated, w/atch.
	Exhibit F.	E-mail, Additional Info, dated 14 Jun 13.




 	
					Panel Chair