RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-04022 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be allowed to serve in the enlisted force to complete his active duty service commitment (ADSC) for the cost of his advanced education at the United States Air Force Academy (USAFA). ________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The only error was his error in judgment, as he was not thinking rationally when he chose reimbursement for the cost of his advanced education rather than serving in the enlisted force. He was offered the option to serve a 2-year ADSC; however, he chose reimbursement rather than service. In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a copy of his letter from the Superintendent, USAFA, undated. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force. ________________________________________________________________ THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: USAFA/JA recommends denial. They note, in accordance with (IAW) Department of Defense Directive (DODD) 1332.23, Service Academy Disenrollment, para 4.1, that active duty is the primary means of reimbursement for education. The Superintendent, as the disenrollment authority, makes the final decision to disenroll the cadet and makes a recommendation as to whether the cadet should be called to serve in an enlisted capacity to reimburse the government or if the cadet should reimburse the government monetarily. The cadet is afforded an opportunity to submit written matters along with the Superintendent’s recommendation on the collateral consequences of his disenrollment to be considered by the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC), the final authority concerning the collateral consequences. The recommendation of the Superintendent to either support enlisted service or to recommend the cadet monetarily reimburse the government is based upon the Superintendent’s assessment that the cadet either does or does not have the aptitude to successfully serve in an enlisted capacity. If it is ultimately determined by SAFPC that enlisted service is not the appropriate means for a cadet to pay back his ADSC, then monetary reimbursement is required instead. However, it is not a question of what the cadet desires, nor is it the cadet’s choice as the applicant implies. In the applicant’s case, the Superintendent decided to disenroll the applicant with a DD Form 785, Record of Disenrollment from Officer Candidate – Type Training, dated 26 May 2009, with a rating of “5 – definitely not recommended” for future officer training. Though the Superintendent recommended enlisted service, it is clear that SAFPC reviewed the applicant’s record and determined the applicant demonstrated by his misconduct that he did not have the aptitude to serve in an enlisted capacity to reimburse the government for the cost of his academy education. SAFPC ordered that he monetarily reimburse the government for the cost of his academy education. The complete USAFA/JA evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant indicates that in his attempt to make his points brief, on the DD Form 149, he believes his points may not have been perceived by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) as he intended. He notes, during his resignation from the USAFA, on one of the forms, he selected that he wanted to pursue an educational delay for an opportunity to finish his education through the Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps (AFROTC); however, in that same section, he also selected that he was not willing to serve in the enlisted force. By doing this, he was showing at that time, if not selected for AFROTC, he would be willing to pay back the cost of education monetarily than to serve in the enlisted force. He realized that it was by no means his decision as to whether he would serve in the enlisted force, pay the cost of his education, or be granted an educational delay for AFROTC. He does believe that his preference may have had some effect on SAFPC’s decision. He understands that if he is not eligible for AFROTC as decided by SAFPC, he is not now asking that the decision be revisited, but does wish the record be corrected to show that he is more than willing to serve in the enlisted force. In support of his appeal, the applicant provides his rebuttal to the Air Force evaluation and a letter of recommendation from his civilian employment supervisor. 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 its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. The applicant’s comments in response to the Air Force evaluation are noted; however, we do not find they introduce matters not sufficiently covered in the evaluation. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. ________________________________________________________________ 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-2010-04022 in Executive Session on 2 August 2011, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 18 Oct 10, w/atch. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, USAFA/JA, dated 3 Jan 11, w/atchs. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Feb 11. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, undated, w/atch.