RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02554
		INDEX NUMBER:  100.07
	XXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  None

	XXXXXXX	HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The DD Form 785, “Record of Disenrollment from Officer Candidate-Type Training,” documenting his disenrollment from officer candidate training be amended in Section IV, “Evaluation To Be Considered In The Future for Determining Acceptability For Other Officer Training,” to reflect “Highly Recommended” vice “Definitely Not Recommended.”
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The evidence supporting his disenrollment was and is unsubstantiated.  At no time did he make any statement to a member of the US Air Force that he is or was gay.  His record reflects that he is deserving of a “Highly Recommended” recommendation regarding future officer candidate type training.  He desires to reenter the Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps (AFROTC) program to pursue a commission in the Air Force.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 17 Apr 02, the applicant enlisted in the Air Force Reserve for the purpose of entering the Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps program at the University of Arizona.  He signed the AFROTC contract on the same day.  On 19 Aug 02, his contract was amended to change his school location to Valdosta State University.  On 30 Jul 03, the applicant was notified by the AFROTC Detachment Commander that disenrollment action under AFROTCI 36-2011 was being initiated against him for failure to maintain military retention standards.  The specific reason was the applicant’s statement to a fellow cadet that he was homosexual.  An investigating officer was appointed.  However, in his acknowledgement of receipt of notification, the applicant requested to waive his right to a disenrollment investigation.  His request was approved.  The applicant submitted a statement in response to the disenrollment action on 5 Aug 03 stating, essentially, that completion of the disenrollment action against him was not warranted.  On 20 Aug 03, the applicant submitted a letter of resignation to the AFROTC Detachment Commander stating he was withdrawing from the university and would no longer be able to perform his duties in the AFROTC program.  On 18 Sep 03, the applicant was disenrolled from the AFROTC program for failure to maintain military retention standards (making a statement regarding his homosexuality) and breach of his AFROTC contract (withdrawing from school).  In Section IV of the DD Form 785, the applicant was “Definitely Not Recommended” for consideration in the future for other officer training.  On 21 Oct 03, the applicant wrote a letter to the President of the United States requesting the policy against homosexuals serving in the US military be changed.  He indicates in the letter he was disenrolled from AFROTC “when my commander found out that I’m homosexual.”

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFOATS/JA recommends denial of the applicant’s request.  The applicant was properly disenrolled for failure to maintain military retention standards and breach of contract.  He has not provided sufficient evidence to refute the actions taken against him.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In his response to the Air Force evaluation, the applicant indicates the decision regarding his disenrollment is based on poorly constructed circumstantial evidence.  The applicant points out what he believes are discrepancies in the facts of the case as stated by AFOATS/JA.  He discusses the contents of the two statements at the center of his disenrollment and how they were misinterpreted and used incorrectly against him.  Applicant goes on to explain why he chose to waive the investigation in his disenrollment case and points out that his decision has no bearing on the facts of the case and does not demonstrate an admission or denial of the facts.  He states his resignation from AFROTC was unavoidable due to several hardships he experienced.  Furthermore, his AFROTC contract was wrongly suspended while he was under investigation.  AFROTC’s decision to suspend his contract before his failure to maintain military retention standards was confirmed put them in breach of his contract and eliminated his obligation to serve the remainder of the term.  He states that his letter to the President was submitted after his case was closed and submitted as a civilian.  He does not find it appropriate that a personal letter written after his separation from the Air Force is included in his case.  However, since the letter is included in his records, he seeks to clarify what the statement “I and countless others like me” means.  He asserts the statement refers merely to those individuals who have been discharged under 10 USC 654, whether said discharge was valid or not.  The statement is not in reference to, nor does it imply, personnel of a particular sexual preference.

The applicant’s complete 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 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 basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  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-2004-02554 in Executive Session on 19 October 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 8 Aug 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFOATS/JA, dated 24 Aug 04.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Aug 04.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 11 Sep 04.