RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBERS:  BC-2002-02911
		INDEX CODE 100.00
	 	COUNSEL:  None

	 	HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reason for disenrollment from the Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps (AFROTC) be changed to “Cadet is disenrolling on grounds of his homosexuality and the military’s current stance on the issue.”

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

When he joined AFROTC he did not fully realize he was homosexual; later he knew that he was and he could not continue with the AFROTC under the current military policy. However, at the time the AFROTC was known to contact parents regarding a cadet’s sexual orientation if that was listed as the reason for dismissal or disenrollment. Since he did not want strangers to divulge this information to his conservative family and religious organization, he gave an alternative reason for disenrollment. He has since “come out” to all of his immediate family and is no longer affiliated with his former church.

The applicant provides statements from his sister and a friend attesting to his sexual orientation, as well as documents pertaining to his disenrollment and character contacts. His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant signed an AFROTC contract, AF Form 1056, on 17 Aug 87. Reserve Order 12, dated 21 Sep 87, indicates the applicant enlisted as a Reservist for eight years on 18 Sep 87. On 21 Sep 87, he was awarded an AFROTC Scholarship at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute with a projected graduation date in May 93. On 13 May 89, the applicant’s scholarship entitlements were inactivated when he was authorized a period of nonattendance (PNA) to serve as a missionary for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

The applicant’s scholarship entitlements were reactivated on 16 Sep 91.  On 19 Nov 91, he signed an addendum to the AFROTC contract, which stated in part that he understood that homosexuality is incompatible with military service and that if he was disenrolled from the AFROTC program at any time because of homosexuality he might be required to repay all scholarship monies expended on his behalf.

On 22 May 92, the applicant informed the detachment commander of his intent to disenroll from the AFROTC due to his interest in boron-neutron capture therapy (BNCT) for brain tumors, which would probably be outside of Air Force professional scope. 

Disenrollment action was initiated on 8 Jun 92 based on anticipatory breach of the AFROTC contract. An investigative officer (IO) was appointed.

On 26 Jun 92, the applicant indicated on AFROTC Form 109 that he would neither continue AFROTC training nor accept a commission because of a desire to pursue a career in medical/health physics that was outside the Air Force’s professional scope. He also indicated that he had reviewed his contractual obligations to the Air Force as stipulated in his AF Form 1056.

On 17 Jul 92, the IO contacted the applicant with regard to his reasons for disenrollment. He also advised the applicant that, as a result of this investigation, he might be involuntarily called to active duty in his enlisted grade or be subject to recoupment of scholarship monies. The applicant indicated he understood and did not need to change his reasons for disenrolling.

DD Form 785, Record of Disenrollment from Officer Candidate-Type Training, dated 24 Jul 92, reflects the applicant would be disenrolled effective 14 Aug 92.  The indicated reason for disenrollment was that the applicant wanted to pursue a career in the medical/health physics field and would not continue with AFROTC training or accept a commission. 

AFROTC Form 22, dated 5 Aug 92, indicated that recoupment action would be initiated and the applicant would not be called to involuntary extended active duty. His disenrollment was effective 14 Aug 92.

On 20 Jul 95, the applicant wrote to HQ AFROTC/RRFD to clarify his reasons for disenrolling and inform them of his sexual orientation. He indicated he did not divulge the real reason for his disenrollment to the IO because he did not want the military advising his family that he was being disenrolled for homosexuality.

HQ AFROTC/RRFD advised the applicant by letter dated 25 Jul 95 that, while his letter was included in his disenrollment case file, it did not change the reason for his disenrollment or their decision to recoup scholarship benefits. On 3 Aug 95, the applicant wrote back that he was dissatisfied with their response and requested a copy of his file. Records were sent to the applicant on 20 Feb 96 under the provisions of the 1974 Privacy Act.

On 22 Feb 96, the applicant again requested that HQ AFROTC/RRFD reevaluate the recoupment action since he wanted his disenrollment reason to be changed to refer to his sexual orientation. He asserted that if the Air Force had not had a discriminatory policy in effect during his ROTC training, he would have continued with the program and that it was only because of the ban on gays in the military that he was forced to leave. He believed recoupment action was not justified.

On 8 Apr 96, the AFROTC Vice Commander advised the applicant that his case file had been thoroughly reviewed. However, his decision to come forward with this issue almost four years later was insufficient grounds for a change in their decision for disenrollment and recoupment action. The applicant was referred to the AFBCMR.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

[The AFOATS/JA advisory has incorrectly numbered paragraphs on page 3; however, there are no “missing” paragraphs.  Pursuant to an AFBCMR Staff inquiry, the advisory author confirmed by email that these were typographical errors, i.e., Para. 5.c. should be Para. 5.b., Para. 5.d. should be 5.c., and the Conclusion and Recommendation paragraphs should be numbered 6 and 7, respectively.]

AFOATS/JA states that there has never been an AFROTC policy to inform parents of their child’s sexual orientation.  No personal information of any kind is released to the cadet’s parents (or anyone else without an official interest) without the permission of the cadet, in accordance with the Privacy Act and AFROTC policy.  Even if he wasn’t sure of the current policy at the time, he could have used the proper channels to clarify the policy. Whatever his reason for apparently lying to the IO, it does not change the fact that AFROTC disenrolled him because he refused to continue in the program (not because he may have been a homosexual). Additionally, it is unclear what his motive is to change his record. Even if changed to reflect his sexual orientation instead of career preference, the recoupment action would stand.  The addendum to his contract that he signed in 1999 makes it clear that if he were to be disenrolled for homosexuality, he might be subject to recoupment.  The appeal is untimely and should be denied on its merits. If the Board elects to grant, the old DD Form 785 should not be rescinded but amended as indicated in their advisory opinion.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant argues that information regarding the reason for disenrollment was often disclosed during DOD scholarship recoupment efforts. His privacy concerns were clearly justified considering DOD’s “witch-hunt” against homosexuals prior to the current “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. He’s not aware of what “proper channels” could have been used to discover if a disclosure of homosexuality would remain private. His motive is to document in military records that another individual with much to offer was forced to resign from ROTC because of DOD policy regarding homosexuality. The question of whether recoupment actions stand is irrelevant. What is unclear is why the military is reticent to acknowledge that its policy on homosexuals forced him to withdraw from AFROTC. None of his character references provided to the Air Force have ever been contacted. The Air Force’s suggested correction if the case is granted simply acknowledges that a request for change was made. It dilutes the power of the Board and fails to “correct” the record. Either he left because of the DOD policy against homosexuals or he did not. His requested change should be granted. 

A complete copy of applicant’s 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 not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.	Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded his reason for disenrollment from the AFROTC should be changed as requested. The applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we do not find these assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force. The applicant indicated he was disenrolling in order to pursue a different career. Apparently with no basis to question the reason for his request, it was approved and he was disenrolled.  Whatever his reason was for apparently not being truthful with the IO, it does not change the fact that he was disenrolled because he refused to continue in the program and was subject to recoupment action. He has not shown that an AFROTC policy existed which would have revealed his sexual orientation to his parents or that he was forced to resign from AFROTC. We therefore agree with the recommendations of the Air Force and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of having suffered either an error or an injustice. In view of the above and absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

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 6 Mar 03 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

			Panel Chair
			Member
			Member

The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number 02-02911 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 10 Sep 02, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFOATS/JA, dated 21 Oct 02.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Nov 02.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 14 Nov 02.