RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02140 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps (AFROTC) debt that 
he incurred as a result of his disenrollment be cancelled. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

During the summer of 2005, he was injured while attending AFROTC 
Field Training at Ellsworth AFB. This injury was so severe that 
he had to be sent home from camp. Upon returning to his ROTC 
detachment, he was repeatedly sent to Scott AFB for medical 
evaluation. This caused him to miss numerous days of core 
academic classes, including those that he was required to attend 
to keep his AFROTC scholarship. Once it was determined that his 
ankle was not recovering in a timely fashion and it looked like 
he was going to be medically disqualified from military service, 
the cadre took what he believes to be a very unprofessional 
stance toward him being in the program. 

 

In summary, he is disputing the debt that he owes due to the 
unprofessional behavior that surrounded his disenrollment from 
the AFROTC program. Once it looked as if he was going to get a 
medical disqualification, the cadre at his detachment took a 
stance that did nothing but look for ways to give him letters of 
counseling (LOCs) in order to push him out of the program. 

 

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a personal 
statement and email correspondence. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

According to the Air Force office of primary responsibility, 
there are no records concerning the applicant’s 2006 AFROTC 
disenrollment, since files are only maintained for three years 
from the date of disenrollment and then destroyed. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 


THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

Holm Center/JA recommends denial, stating, in part, that 
according to AFROTC/RRFD, the applicant was disenrolled from 
AFROTC in Mar 06. AFROTC/RRFD found no disenrollment records 
for the applicant. The applicant states that he was disenrolled 
from the AFROTC program "due to the unprofessional behavior" 
displayed by his detachment staff. 

 

They provided the following analysis of the case: 

 

a. There are no records contained at AFROTC concerning the 
applicant. Disenrollment files are maintained for three years 
from the date of disenrollment and then destroyed. 

 

b. Per AF Form 1056, part 1, para 2, ... If I am 
disenrolled, the decision to call (recall) me to active duty, 
pursue recoupment of monies expended on my education, or release 
me from my obligations under this contract is within the sole 
discretion of the Commander, HQ AFROTC (or designee).” 

 

c. The debt is a valid debt resulting from the applicant’s 
disenrollment and not an error to his military record. 

 

d. The applicant states that he feels that his concerns 
were not given enough weight in the disenrollment investigation 
and alleges that he submitted a rebuttal. In addition, he 
claims his rebuttal outlined the issues surrounding his injury, 
which led to his disenrollment. While the scheduled destruction 
of his record three years after his disenrollment makes it 
impossible to present the specific facts of his case, they can 
provide details regarding the disenrollment process. During the 
disenrollment, if a cadet elects to submit a rebuttal or 
response, that document is kept with the package and reviewed at 
all levels along with the report of investigation. The final 
disenrollment decision, made by HQ AFROTC, would have considered 
any response provided by the applicant prior to making a 
disenrollment decision on a case. The decision to disenroll the 
applicant from AFROTC and direct recoupment of funds was not 
punitive in nature, but merely an activation of the terms of the 
contract he voluntarily signed at the time he enlisted in the 
Obligated Reserve Section of the Inactive Reserves, and was in 
keeping with nationwide AFROTC policy. 

 

 

The complete Holm Center/JA evaluation, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit B. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the 
applicant on 27 Jun 12 for review and comment within 30 days. 


As of this date, no response has been received by this office 
(Exhibit C). 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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. 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. In addition, 
while we note the applicant’s contentions, that his debt 
incurred as a result of his disenrollment should be cancelled, 
based upon the presumption of regularity in the conduct of 
governmental affairs and without evidence to the contrary, we 
must assume the applicant's disenrollment was proper and in 
compliance with appropriate directives. Therefore, based on the 
available evidence of record, we find no basis upon which to 
favorably consider 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-2012-02140 in Executive Session on 20 December 2012, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 21 May 12, w/atch. 

 Exhibit B. Letter, Holm Ctr/JA, dated 25 Jun 12, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Jun 12. 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair