RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-02158 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He receive his diploma from the United States Air Force Academy (USAFA). ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He completed and passed all required classes to receive his degree from the USAFA. His disenrollment from the USAFA was excessive and malicious. The ruling officer in his case made his decision before he had the opportunity to present anything during the hearing. The primary allegations against him were that he had an unprofessional relationship and that he attempted to obstruct justice to keep himself out of trouble. During the findings of facts, they found there was no evidence to suggest that he attempted to interfere with the investigation. Additionally, he was completely forthright on all accounts and was as helpful as possible with the investigation. Cadet offenses are handled under the Cadet Disciplinary System. Unprofessional relationships are considered a Category IV offense and hold a maximum punishment of 110 demerits, 99 confinements, 6 months restriction and revocation of class privileges. Although he had already “self-rehabilitated” he received and served this maximum punishment. After serving this punishment, he received a second punishment of disenrollment, denial of his educational degree and a bill for $168,423. He has since been allowed to serve three years enlisted time in lieu of the $168,423. Education is essential to all enlisted careers, especially for acquisition professionals. He has not been able to further his education since the Academy. He has been unable to find schools that will accept him into a Master’s program without a certified degree. Furthermore, he has not been able to find a school that will allow him to transfer four years’ worth of credits for a Bachelor of Science. His lapse of judgment was completely out of character and not the standard. That being said, his offense was serious and did not follow the standards required for officers. He fully understands why the military does not find him fit to serve as an officer in the USAF. However, he does not feel that his actions should hinder his career as an enlisted airman. Denying his degree is excessive punishment for his actions. Since his enlistment, he has strived to be the very best in his career field. He has earned his contracting warrant much earlier in his career and a much higher value than typical contracting officers. He has administered and awarded contracts totaling over hundreds of millions that directly support the warfighter. He has received the Outstanding Contracting Airman of the Year at the group level, Airman of the Quarter at the group level and the John L. Levitow Award at Airman Leadership School. The one thing holding him back is his degree. In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a personal statement, Findings of Fact, statement from his defense counsel and the hearing transcript. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant was a cadet at the USAFA Air Force Academy from 26 June 2006 through 13 May 2013. He was involuntarily disenrolled for misconduct. He received a Letter of Reprimand for making a false official statement and having an unprofessional relationship with a fourth-class cadet. He was scheduled for commissioning on 26 May 2010. He enlisted in the Air Force on 22 November 2010 and served as a contracting journeyman until his honorable separation on 21 November 2013. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this case are contained in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility and listed at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: USAFA/JA recommends denial. The applicant received a Letter of Reprimand for having an unprofessional relationship with a female fourth-class cadet in the fall of 2009; for making a false official statement on or about 3 October 2009 when he said that he did not have an unprofessional relationship; and for attempting to obstruct and interfere with an investigation by telling the female fourth class cadet not to tell personnel at the USAFA, to include the Office of Special Investigations about their unprofessional relationship. On 29 March 2010, he was notified that the Commandant of Cadets was beginning a Hearing Officer disenrollment action based on the applicant’s aforementioned actions, in addition to, an allegation he was absent from his place of duty without authorization on 10 February 2010 and that he failed to disclose that he was cited for speeding that same day. The applicant elected to have the allegations heard by a hearing officer on 4 April 2010. The hearing officer found by a preponderance of the evidence considered that the applicant did engage in an unprofessional relationship, did make a false official statement and that he was absent from his squadron without proper authority. However, the hearing officer did not substantiate that the applicant obstructed or interfered with an investigation, nor did he substantiate that the applicant failed to violate any regulations by failing to report his speeding citation. The Commandant and Superintendent considered the hearing officers report, the verbatim transcript and all the applicant’s matters prior to making their retention/disenrollment decision. The Superintendent directed the applicant be disenrolled from the USAFA and forwarded the case to the Secretary of the Air Force (SecAF) to determine whether the applicant should have served enlisted active duty for three years, monetarily recoup the government the cost of his advanced education or be granted an educational delay to seek commission via AFROTC in fulfillment of his active duty service commitment. The SecAF took action on the case and ordered the applicant to serve enlisted active duty for a period of three years on 22 November 2010. DoD Directive 1322.22 paragraph 4.5.2 along with paragraph 2.1 of USAF Instruction 26-3533, Requirements for Graduation, states that in order to graduate from USAFA and be awarded a Bachelor of Science degree, a cadet must demonstrate an aptitude for commissioned service and leadership, be satisfactory in conduct, and meet all military training, physical education and academic requirements. In addition to these authorities, a cadet must demonstrate an aptitude for commissioned service and leadership, display acceptable conduct, maintain proficiency in physical education and the commissioning education program and meet all requirements for a Bachelor of Science Program. Based on these authorities, even with the applicant’s sufficient grades and having passed all of his required classes, that is not all that is required to earn a USAFA diploma. The applicant was disenrolled from the USAFA on 28 May 2010 for three substantiated allegations of military misconduct. The authorities are clear that you must demonstrate an aptitude for commissioned service and leadership and be satisfactory in conduct. The applicant was deficient in both of these requirements necessary to receive a USAFA diploma and be deemed a USAFA graduate. The applicant argues that he completed all the necessary work for a degree from the USAFA. While that may be true for a civilian institution of higher learning, and adequate academic record is not the sole basis for determining who is awarded a degree from the USAFA. While the applicant was not awarded a degree from the USAFA, the credits earned may be transferred and applied to another institution of higher learning as he seeks to obtain a degree. The applicant was afforded due process, to include his right to consult with counsel, present evidence and question witnesses testifying at his enrollment hearing. The basis of the applicant’s disenrollment is sufficient to deny his degree from the USAFA. The complete USAFA/JA evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant objects to the BCMR’s choice of expert opinion if looking for an unbiased opinion. He does not feel the office that processed his disenrollment was the correct place to look. He takes issue with many of the advisory writer’s statements and states it is ridiculous the Academy would order a hearing officer just to dismiss it findings and make a contradictory decision. This suggests his fate was decided well before he had the opportunity to present his case. He also addresses other issues with the advisory. He further states he has tried to transfer his credits to another institution and has been unable to do so. He also disagrees that he failed to comply with the requirement that he shows an aptitude for commissioned service and leadership. He again admits his actions were not within the standards required of an officer; however, all of his subsequent actions were. He never once denied his actions but was completely forthright and honest. He served the punishment honorably and gracefully. The advisory; however, does not address double jeopardy and the fact that he was punished twice for the same mistake. The applicant’s complete response, with attachment, 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 an error or injustice. We took careful notice of the applicant's complete submission, to include his response to the Air Force office of primary responsibility, in judging the merits of the case. Notwithstanding the applicant’s view, we find insufficient evidence that the applicant was denied any rights to which he was entitled. Additionally, we do not find the there was an abuse of discretionary authority or that the actions of the USAFA were arbitrary or capricious. As such, we agree with USAFA/JA and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. We also agree that the applicant may transfer his educational credits to a civilian institution of higher learning. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-02158 in Executive Session on 18 February 2014, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-02158 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 1 May 13, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Letter, Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, USAFA/JA, dated 10 Jun 13. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Jun 19 Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant’s Response, dated 25 Jul 13, w/atch.