RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02599
		INDEX NUMBER:  100.07
	XXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  None

	XXXXXXX	HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be commissioned as a second lieutenant in the US Air Force and reinstated to full active duty.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He completed the entire 12-week Officer Training School (OTS) program and successfully passed all graded measures and evaluations.

He was not notified or informed he was being disenrolled from OTS until graduation day (20 Dec 02).  He was also never pulled from training or missed any actual training during the 12 weeks of training.

When he compared his file to several of his classmates and others in the squadron who had the benefit of being recycled, he found that many had received letters of counseling and had also failed a number of graded measures, including the physical fitness test.  He met or exceeded the basic military standards for OTS by passing all graded measurements.  Despite the judgment made by his Flight Training Officer and commanders, he met or exceeded the basic military standards for officers.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a copy of the documentation from his 12-week training record.  

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered Officer Training School on 30 Sep 02.  On  2 Dec 02, the applicant was notified by his flight commander he was initiating disenrollment proceedings against him for demonstrating lack of adaptability.  The action was based on the applicant having been counseled on at least ten occasions for various infractions.  The applicant acknowledged receipt on 2 Dec 02 and submitted a written statement on 5 Dec 02.  On 10 Dec 02, the applicant’s flight commander initiated a “Recycle/Disenrollment Recommendation Form” recommending the applicant be disenrolled from OTS for lack of adaptability and that block 3, “Should not be considered without weighing the ‘needs of the service’ against the reasons for this disenrollment” be marked in section IV of the DD Form 785.  The operations officer concurred with the flight commander’s recommendation and the Officer Training School Commander approved it on 11 Dec 02.  The applicant’s disenrollment was approved by AFOATS/CC on 18 Dec 02.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFOATS/JA recommends denial of the applicant’s request.  The applicant did not successfully complete the 12 weeks of training because he was in a casual status for the final three weeks of training.  Although the applicant contends he was not notified of the disenrollment action until 20 Dec 02, the date he was supposed to be commissioned, he signed the disenrollment notification on 2 Dec 02 and was removed from training on 9 Dec 02.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 10 Sep 04 for review and comment within 30 days.  To date, a response has not been received.

_________________________________________________________________

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.

_________________________________________________________________

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-2004-02599 in Executive Session on 2 November 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 7 Nov 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFOATS/JA, dated 2 Sep 04.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Sep 04.