RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02423 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. His call to Extended Active Duty (EAD) as an enlisted member be rescinded. 2. The tuition/subsistence be recouped monetarily. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was prevented from complying with the terms of his academic probation set forth in a formal disposition due to time constraints. The call to EAD would prevent him from achieving his professional engineers’ license, which is arguably necessary for success in any engineering field. EAD would serve the needs of the Air Force and the nation much less than allowing a licensed engineer to flourish. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: According to documents, submitted by the applicant, he was a cadet in the Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps (AFROTC) program at Auburn University. He was disenrolled from the AFROTC program in July 2011. Additional relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit B. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Holm Center/JA recommends denial of the applicant’s request to rescind his obligation to serve on Extended Active Duty. On 27 July 2011, the applicant was disenrolled from the AFROTC program under the provisions of AFI 36-2011, Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps Program, paragraph 6.1.4 and 6.1.7, and AFROTCI 36-2011 Cadet Operations, paragraph 11.4.2.1 and 11.4.2.6, for failure to maintain academic retention standards and breach/anticipatory breach of the AFROTC contract. Specifically, he failed to maintain academic retention standards when he received five academic deficiencies and failed to maintain the required grade point average (GPA) during three academic terms. Additionally, the applicant breached the AFROTC contract due to his inability to meet his date of graduation (DOG)/date of commission (DOC). a. The applicant was enrolled in AFROTC pursuing a degree in aerospace engineering which is a SAF-approved five-year major. The applicant was scheduled to take the full five years to complete the degree. Due to his earning five failing/substandard grades (4Fs, 1D) he put himself in the position where he could not complete his degree within the authorized and approved AFROTC maximum of five years. In accordance with the terms of his contract, he was disenrolled from the AFROTC commissioning program. b. AFROTCI 36-2011, para 4.3.9, states that Conditional Events (CEs) are official documentation of a failure to maintain AFROTC retention standards. Paragraph 4.39.1.1, further states that contracted cadets who fail to maintain retention standards must receive a CE. Upon issuing a contract cadet a fourth and any subsequent CE (third) if the cadet is within 12 months of DOC or has three CEs all for academic failure), the detachment must investigate the cadet for disenrollment. Paragraph 11.7.1, states that upon review of a disenrollment package, AFROTC/RR may offer the cadet a suspended disenrollment and probation in lieu of disenrollment which is what AFROTC elected to do for the applicant in order to provide him the opportunity to raise his GPA and meet the minimum AFROTC standards. However, the primary condition of the probation was that the applicant graduate and commission in FY 12, as no change in his DOG/DOC was approved. c. Due to the applicant receiving two failing grades during the Fall 2010 term, which failures were verified on 4 January 2011, he received his third CE dated 10 January 2011. That third CE triggered a disenrollment investigation, which the detachment completed on 7 February 2011. HQ AFROTC did not receive the applicant’s disenrollment case file until 11 February 2011. AFROTC is authorized up to 60 days to review all disenrollment investigations. The 60-day review window allows for the package to be reviewed at multiple levels before a final review and determination is made by the HQ AFROTC Registrar. AFROTC completed the review of the applicant’s case on 8 April 2011 and determined that the applicant could remain in AFROTC, on a probationary status, provided he could meet his scheduled DOG/DOC date. DOG/DC change was not authorized because cadets cannot be in AFROTC more than one year after completing four years of AFROTC instruction and training. This information was forwarded to the detachment on 8 April 2011 and presented to the applicant on 18 April 2011. d. The applicant’s failed courses in Spring 2009, Spring 2010 and Fall 2010, were the reasons for his not being able to make his contracted DOG/DOC date, which was the primary requirement of his probation. The investigative process ensures the member is treated fairly and that AFROTC’s findings are legally sufficient. The thorough review of his disenrollment case file and subsequent notification were accomplished within the authorized time limits stated in AFROTC 36-2011. Therefore, the applicant’s inability to meet his contracted DOG/DOC was due to his own academic failures and not attributed to any fault of AFROTC. e. The decision to call the applicant to EAD is not punitive in nature; rather, it is an activation of the voluntary commitment he made to the Air Force via the contract (AF Form 1056) he signed on 13 August 2008, in exchange for education and training benefits and the opportunity to earn a commission as an Air Force officer. The applicant’s failure to uphold the terms of his AFROTC contract resulted in his disenrollment and call to EAD. The contract the applicant signed stipulated that if he failed to satisfy its terms he would either be called to EAD or have the funds paid on his behalf recouped. Federal law, Department of Defense regulation (DoDI 1215.08) and Air Force Instruction state a call to EAD is the primary means of reimbursement for educational benefits. Holm Center/JA concludes that the applicant repeatedly failed to meet the standards expected of an officer candidate. His records were properly reviewed through all levels of AFROTC and the decision to call him to EAD reflects a fair, consistent, and impartial evaluation for all AFROTC cadets on a national level. AFROTC's decision to disenroll the applicant and call him to EAD is both legally sufficient and appropriately applied. The complete Holm Center/JA advisory is at Exhibit B. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force advisory was mailed to the applicant on 30 August 2012 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit C). To date, this office has not received a response. ________________________________________________________________ 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, the Board majority agrees with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopts its rationale as the basis for their conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. In this respect, the majority notes the Holm Center/JA evaluation indicates the decision to call the applicant to extended active duty (EAD) is not punitive in nature; rather, it is an activation of the voluntary commitment he made to the Air Force via the contract he signed on 13 August 2008, in exchange for education and training benefits and the opportunity to earn a commission as an Air Force officer. The applicant's contentions are duly noted; however, the Board majority notes that it was his inability to uphold the terms of the AFROTC contract which stipulated that if he failed to satisfy its terms he would either be called to EAD or have the funds paid on his behalf recouped, resulting in his disenrollment and call to EAD. Federal law, Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI 1215.08) and Air Force Instruction state a call to EAD is the primary means of reimbursement for educational benefits. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the majority of the Board finds no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. ________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD: A majority of the Board finds insufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommends the application be denied. ________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 12 February 2013, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member By a majority vote, the Board recommended denial of the application. voted to correct the record and has submitted a minority report which is attached at Exhibit D. The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR Docket Number BC- 2012-02423: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 5 June 2012, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Letter, Holm Center/JA, dated 24 August 2012. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 August 2012. Exhibit D. Minority Report, dated 5 March 2013.