RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02032

					COUNSEL:  

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO 



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His numerical rating in Section IV, of his DD Form 785, 
Record of Disenrollment from Officer Candidate – Type Training, 
be changed from a “3-Should Not Be Considered Without Weighing 
the Needs of the Service Against the Reasons for Disenrollment,” 
to a “1- Highly Recommended.”

2.  He be readmitted to the Cadet Wing at the United States Air 
Force Academy. 


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The action disenrolling and separating him from status as a 
cadet at the United States Air Force Academy (USAFA) should be 
set aside.  His outstanding civilian and enlisted service record 
reflect his commitment to excellence.  He accepted 
responsibility for his misconduct.  The Article 15 action does 
not mean that a cadet must be disenrolled.  Counsel represented 
another cadet with similar disciplinary actions who also 
received an Article 15; however, after a Military Review 
Committee (MRC), he was allowed to graduate from USAFA and be 
commissioned.

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the USAFA on 25 Jun 09.

On 26 Apr 12, the applicant received an Article 15 for 
wrongfully possessing alcohol in the USAFA dormitories and was 
derelict in the performance of his duties in that he willfully 
failed to refrain from providing alcohol to Air Force Cadets who 
were under the legal drinking age of 21.  

On 4 May 12, the Commandant of Cadets directed that the 
applicant’s misconduct be reviewed by a Hearing Officer.
On 24 May 12, the hearing convened, the Hearing Officer found by 
a preponderance of the evidence that the applicant committed all 
of the offenses as alleged. 

On 25 Jul 12, the Superintendent, USAFA directed that the 
applicant be disenrolled, assigned a rating of three, and 
recommended to the Secretary of the Air Force (SECAF) that he be 
ordered to active duty in enlisted status for a period of three 
years.

On 30 Nov 12, the SECAF directed that the applicant be separated 
from cadet status and assigned to active duty in an enlisted 
status for two years.

On 28 Jan 13, the applicant enlisted in the regular Air Force. 

On 27 Jan 15, the applicant was discharged honorably and 
credited with three years, five months, and six days of active 
service.   

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of 
primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C.    


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

USAFA/JA recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an 
error or an injustice.  The applicant’s DD Form 785 correctly 
states the circumstances surrounding his situation at the time 
of his disenrollment from the USAFA.  The section IV remarks are 
a continuation of the comments in section III.  The rating of 
“3” on the DD Form 785 is most consistent for the cases where 
the cadet is failing to “meet or exceed minimum standards.”  A 
rating of “1” in Section IV of the DD Form 785 is reserved for 
cadets that have exceeded the standards.  The applicant received 
Article 15 action for wrongfully possessing alcohol in the USAFA 
dormitories and was derelict in the performance of his duties in 
that he willfully failed to refrain from providing alcohol to 
Air Force Cadets who were under the legal drinking age of 21.  
This was his second incident with bringing alcohol into to the 
USAFA Cadet Dormitories.  In the fall of 2011, the applicant 
admitted to his Academy Military Trainer (AMT) that he brought 
alcohol in the dorms with cadets that were under the legal 
drinking age of 21.  The applicant’s offense was particularly 
egregious and not considered an average candidate’s actions.  
His rating was assigned by the Superintendent after having 
considered the circumstances surrounding the applicant’s 
misconduct along with all the other entries in the applicant’s 
personnel folder.  

Regarding the applicant’s request to be reinstated to the Cadet 
Wing, recommend denial, the applicant can use his enlisted 
record to apply for other commissioning sources but his 
disenrollment was based on serious misconduct where the 
applicant was on notice per the Commandant of Cadets Instruction 
CoCI 51-201, Cadet Counseling, Discipline, Rehabilitation, and 
Monitoring, identifies a second alcohol-related offense of any 
type will result in further UCMJ action–likely an Article 15-and 
disenrollment from USAFA.  While his enlisted service is 
commendable, it does not provide a basis for reinstatement to 
USAFA.  

The applicant disputes that receipt of an Article 15 warrants 
disenrollment and, through his attorney, provides an example of 
another cadet that was allowed to remain in the Cadet Wing after 
he was charged with underage drinking and raping a female cadet 
after a party.  After an Article 32 hearing, charges against the 
cadet were dismissed but he received an Article 15 for underage 
drinking on multiple occasions.  The cadet’s misconduct was 
reviewed by a MRC and the cadet was not disenrolled and was 
allowed to graduate and be commissioned.  The applicant was 
disenrolled based on facts specific to his case.  Counsel’s 
attempt to compare sentences on two factually distinct cadet 
disenrollment cases is inappropriate as the facts of each case 
must be assessed individually and the command received a legal 
recommendation on each individual case.

The applicant’s disenrollment was legally sufficient whether he 
received an Article 15, Letter of Reprimand (LOR, an Air Force 
Cadet Wing (AFCW) Form 10) documenting the misconduct.  The 
substantiated misconduct was presumptive disenrollment 
misconduct IAW Cadet Wing instructions and policies regarding 
the Cadet Alcohol Related Discipline System.  

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

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Counsel notes that a “3” rating in Block IV, DD Form 785 is 
usually assigned to cadets who resign in-lieu-of action under or 
conviction for a breach of the honor code.  The applicant 
received this rating even though neither of those conditions 
applied to him.  The applicant has leadership potential for 
service as a commissioned officer.  There are cases where 
exceptions should be made on individual cases when circumstances 
allow and this is such a case.

A complete copy of the applicant’s rebuttal 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 
notice of the applicant’s complete submission, including 
Counsel’s rebuttal response, in judging the merits of the case; 
however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air 
Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) and adopt its 
rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not 
been the victim of an error of injustice.  While Counsel’s 
arguments and assertions are duly noted, we are not convinced 
that any form of corrective action is warranted.  While Counsel 
argues that he successfully represented another cadet whose 
misconduct was allegedly more egregious than the applicant, the 
implication being that the applicant’s disenrollment was somehow 
inequitable or disproportionate to the circumstances, we do not 
find this argument sufficient to conclude that corrective action 
is warranted.  In this respect, we agree with the comments of 
the OPR indicating that each case was judged on its own unique 
circumstances.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the 
contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested 
relief.
 

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-2014-02032 in Executive Session on 19 Mar 15, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:






The following documentary evidence pertaining AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2014-02032 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 18 Apr 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, USAFA/JA, dated 23 Sep 14.
     	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Oct 14.
     	Exhibit E.  Counsel Rebuttal, dated 2 Jan 15.