RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-01921
		INDEX NUMBER:  110.00
	XXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  None

	XXXXXXX	HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her disenrollment from the Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps (AFROTC) program due to medical disqualification be voided.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Her AFROTC detachment made numerous procedural errors regarding her commissioning.  She never received adequate counsel as requested and never received a complete copy of her medical records as requested.  She was never informed of the exact disqualifying factor leading to her disenrollment.

In support of her appeal, applicant provides a copy of her disenrollment paperwork and a copy of her honorable discharge certificate from the Air Force Reserve.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

According to information contained in the applicant’s AFROTC records, the applicant enlisted in the Air Force Reserve on     10 Nov 00 for the purpose of entering the AFROTC program.  She signed an AFROTC contract on the same date for pursuit of a degree in Aerospace Engineering with a three-year Type II scholarship.  The applicant completed the requirements of the AFROTC program, but was not commissioned due to being medically disqualified by the AETC Surgeon General (AETC/SG) on 24 Nov 03 for a history of craniotomy in Jul 03 and a history of seizures controlled with medication.  On 4 Dec 03, an investigating officer was appointed to conduct an investigation into the disenrollment action initiated against the applicant.

On 11 Dec 03, the applicant was notified by her AFROTC Detachment commander that he was initiating disenrollment action against her due to her medical disqualification by the AETC/SG.  She was also advised of the appointment of the investigating officer.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the letter of notification, which contained an estimate of benefits received of $53,153.34.  The applicant indicated that she would continue AFROTC training if given the opportunity and that she would accept a commission as an officer in the Air Force if one were tendered to her.  She also requested the appointment of an active duty military member to assist her and indicated that she did not wish to have a college or university official invited by the Air Force to be present at her disenrollment hearing.  She also did not waive her right to a disenrollment investigation.  On 18 Feb 04, the AFROTC Detachment commander appointed a military counsel for the applicant.  The report of investigation (ROI) was completed on  23 Jan 04 and it was indicated that a copy was sent to the applicant on 26 Jan 04.  In a letter, dated 4 Feb 04, to her AFROTC Detachment commander, the applicant provided her response to the ROI as well as additional information she believed should be part of her file before a final decision was made.  The applicant provided a point-by-point rebuttal of the items contained in the ROI.  On 10 Mar 04, the HQ AFROTC Registrar determined that the applicant would be disenrolled effective    12 Mar 04 and that neither recoupment nor call to enlisted active duty would be initiated.  On the DD Form 785, “Record of Disenrollment from Officer Candidate-Type Training,” Section IV, “Evaluation To Be Considered in the Future for determining Acceptability for Other Officer Training” the applicant was recommended for future officer training if her physical defects are corrected or if such defects are not disqualifying for other programs.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFOATS/JA recommends denial of the applicant’s request.  The applicant completed her officer training requirements in the fall 2003 semester.  However, she was not commissioned due to being medically disqualified by the HQ AETC Surgeon General on 24 Nov 03.  On 14 May 04, HQ ARPC mailed the applicant an ARPC Form 156, Personnel Document/Forms, notifying her that reservists do not receive a DD Form 214 unless they are on active duty for more than 90 days.  She was also advised that they had no records documenting any active duty service for her.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In her response to the Air Force evaluation, applicant indicates that the Air Force evaluation does not make mention of her rebuttal to the Report of Investigation completed on her disenrollment.  Her rebuttal included a statement of facts as well as numerous reports from surgeons and physicians detailing her health and ability to perform her duties in the Air Force.  She provides a copy of the rebuttal for the Board’s review.  The applicant acknowledges that she should not receive a DD Form 214.

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, 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.  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 their rationale as the primary basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Additionally, the applicant has not presented sufficient evidence that the AETC Surgeon General erred in his decision to medically disqualify her from being commissioned.  We note that she was recommended for future officer training if her physical defects are corrected and such defects are not disqualifying for other programs.  While the period of time the applicant must wait before readdressing her disqualification may be longer than she desires, five years of being drug free, it does leave the door open for her future consideration for service as a military officer.  While regrettable that her medical condition precludes her from being commissioned at the present time, we are not persuaded that an error or injustice has occurred.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling 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 Docket Number BC-2004-01921 in Executive Session on 17 August 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 Jun 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFOATS/JA, dated 28 Jun 04.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Jul 04.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 10 Jul 04, w/atchs.