RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-04618 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1.  His DD Form 785, Record of Disenrollment from Officer Candidate – Type Training, dated 18 December 2000, be vacated in its entirety. Or, if not vacated, amend it to upgrade the rating in Section IV from “5” - DEFINITELY NOT RECOMMENDED to “l” - HIGHLY RECOMMENDED. 2.  His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be corrected in item 13, Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, to include the Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM) and the Air Force Outstanding Unit Award with two Bronze Oak Leaf Clusters (AFOUA w/2BOLC). 3.  As an alternative to Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps (AFROTC) commissioning, he be selected to attend Officer Training School (OTS) with a basic officer training class date that will allow him to be commissioned prior to September 2015. 4.  As an alternative, the OTS Selection Board be compelled to select him for OTS. 5.  As an alternative, the AFBCMR or the Secretary of the Air Force attach a recommendation for selection for OTS letter to his application package. 6.  As an alternative to attending OTS, he be allowed to be commissioned immediately based upon the requirements of AFROTC in effect at the time of his disenrollment and in consideration of military training he received while as a cadet and a squadron commander in the Texas A&M Corps of Cadets after his disenrollment from AFROTC, provided he meets all physical or other standards of service. 7.  As an alternative to attending OTS, he be directly commissioned into the Inactive Ready Reserve with a retroactive commissioning date, with appropriate promotions to first lieutenant and captain based on service that would have transpired, then release him from the IRR effective a date of the Board's choosing. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 1.  The DD Form 785 was issued and he was disenrolled solely for violation of 10 U.S.C. § 654, Policy on Homosexual Conduct, better known as “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” (DADT). The 10 U.S.C. § 654, repeal was certified on 20 September 2011, and is no longer a valid reason for disenrollment. He is actively seeking a return to service in the Air Force and the DD Form 785 now stands as an absolute barrier to his return. It renders him ineligible to return to service in the Air Force and must be vacated for his return to service. 2.  Subsequent to his discharge, he learned there were some decorations and/or devices he was authorized that were not properly recorded on his DD Form 214. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: According to copies of documents extracted from the Automated Records Management System (ARMS), the applicant is a former member of the Regular Air Force who served from 11 September 1996 to 20 August 2000. He was released from active duty in the grade of Senior Airman, E-4, with an honorable characterization of service and a narrative for separation of “officer training program” and was credited with completing 3 Years, 11 months and 10 days of active duty service. According to documents, submitted by the applicant, he is a former cadet of the Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps (AFROTC) program at Texas A&M University. He was disenrolled from the AFROTC program in December 2000. In a letter dated 8 January 2014, the applicant submits additional requests for the Board to consider. The applicant states that since the time he submitted his application, the Secretary of the Air Force has allowed him to apply for consideration for selection to Officer Training School with a waiver of age based on prior active duty service. He has begun this process concurrently with his AFBCMR application due to time constraints associated with his age and the affect it will have on the OTS application process. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letters prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPRs) which are included at Exhibits C, D, G, H and I. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 1.  AFROTC/CC recommends denial. AFROTC/CC states there is no valid basis to vacate the applicant’s DD Form 785. The applicant's disenrollment from AFROTC and the accompanying DD Form 785, were properly executed in accordance with the law and the applicable policy and Air Force instructions in effect at the time. Furthermore, Section IV of the DD Form 785 is merely a recommendation for future acceptance into other officer training programs. Effective 18 December 2000, the applicant was disenrolled from the AFROTC program under the provisions of AFI 36-2011, Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corp (AFROTC) Program, paragraph 6.1.5, and AFOATSI 36-2011, Administration of Senior Air Force ROTC Cadets, paragraph 6.8.3, Failure to Maintain Military Retention Standards. Failure to maintain military retention standards included “homosexual or bisexual conduct,” of which the applicant voluntarily admitted during his time in AFROTC. 2.  The DD Form 785 specifies the details of the disenrollment and provides a recommendation for acceptability for other officer training. At the time of disenrollment, the applicant did not meet military standards and was removed from the program. On his DD Form 785, Section IV, Evaluation to be Considered in the Future for Determining Acceptability for Other Officer Training, a rating of “5” was selected. The rating of “5” corresponds to “Definitely Not Recommended.” This was the proper classification at the time due to the infraction and the governing regulations, which the applicant agreed to by entering into a contract with AFROTC. Air Force Instruction 36-2012, Record of Disenrollment from Officer Candidate-Type Training - DD Form 785, Attachment 4, Disenrollment Recommendation Guide: Cadets and Officer Trainees, paragraph A4.5, explains the “5” rating and states, “Block 5-Definitely Not Recommended: Give this rating to those whose aptitude or personal behaviors have consistently failed to meet the minimum standards.” The list of prohibited conduct, which follows this statement specifically, includes “sexual misbehavior.” 3.  Contrary to what the applicant stated on his application for correction of his military record, the DD Form 785 does not render him ineligible to return to service in the Air Force, either as an enlisted member or as an officer. The rating of “5” in Section IV of his DD Form 785 is merely a recommendation for future acceptance into other officer training programs. The recommendation was made as a result of the applicant's failure to meet military retention standards lawfully enforced at the time of his disenrollment from AFROTC. The officer training programs of the other branches of the U.S. military make their own determinations for program entry. All services are aware that “Don't Ask, Don't Tell” is no longer a policy for service in the military. The complete AFROTC/CC advisory is at Exhibit C. 1.  AFPC/DPSID recommends partial approval. DPSID states the applicant was awarded the Air Force Good Conduct Medal, Military Outstanding Volunteer Service Medal, United States Air Force Basic Military Training Honor Graduate Ribbon, Small Arms Expert Marksmanship Ribbon with one Bronze Service Star and the Air Force Training Ribbon as annotated on his DD Form 214 dated 20 August 2000; therefore, no update of these awards is required. Furthermore, based on their review of the applicant's official military personnel record, they were able to determine that the below Air Force Medals and/or Ribbons should have been awarded during the applicant's service from 11 September 1996 to 20 August 2000, and were not reflected in his records. Upon final Board decision, administrative correction of the applicant's official military personnel record will be completed by AFPC/DPSOR: a. Humanitarian Service Medal (HSM). b.  Air Force Achievement Medal with one Bronze Oak Leaf Cluster (AFAM w/ lOLC). c.  Air Force Organizational Excellence Award with two Bronze Oak Leaf Clusters (AFOEA w/2BOLC). 2.  The applicant is requesting award of the Air Force Outstanding Unit Award with two Bronze Oak Leaf Clusters for his assignment with the 316th Training Squadron, 32nd Intelligence Squadron and the 34th Training Group. The applicant was awarded the Air Force Outstanding Unit Award with one Bronze Oak Leaf Cluster as annotated on his DD Form 214; however, they are only able to verify award of the Air Force Outstanding Unit Award for the applicant's assignment to the 316th Training Squadron between 28 October 1996 and 6 November 1996. The 316th Training Squadron was awarded the Air Force Outstanding Unit Award for award inclusive period from 1 July 1995 to 30 June 1997. They are unable to verify the applicant was assigned to any additional units that were awarded the Air Force Outstanding Unit Award during his period of service with the units, rendering him ineligible for award of the Air Force Outstanding Unit Award with two Bronze Oak Leaf Clusters. 3.  They recommend approval for award of the Air Force Commendation as the applicant provided a certificate and citation that appear to be authentic. Should the board grant the relief sought, a Special Order will be accomplished and the applicant's DD Form 214, will be updated with the Air Force Commendation Medal. The complete AFPC/DPSID advisory is at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 1.  In further support of his request, the applicant responds to the advisory opinions point-by-point and provides comments, states his agreement or disagreement, and reiterates his contentions and request for corrections to his record in a thirteen-page rebuttal, with attachments. He expresses his concurrence with the AFPC/DPSID’s findings and states that he appreciates the work done to verify the decorations and the provision of appropriate administrative relief. However, paragraph “a” of the “FACTS” portion of DPSID's advisory opinion erroneously omits the Bronze Oak Leaf Cluster from his Air Force Training Ribbon. He believes this to be a simple, unintentional error, as the Air Force Training Ribbon with one Bronze Oak Leaf Cluster appears correctly on his original DD Form 214. 2.   He disagrees with AFPC/DPSID recommendation because they failed to consider evidence that was presented in his AFBCMR application package showing assignment as a cadet in Cadet Squadron 1 at the Air Force Academy from 30 June 1998 to 12 August 1998. The AFOUA was awarded to the 34th Training Group, including Cadet Groups 1-4, from 1 January 1998 to 31 October 1999. Cadet Group 1 includes Cadet Squadrons 1-10. Air Force Academy Cadets have historically been authorized unit awards that were awarded to the Cadet Wing or its superior authority, the 34th Training Group. He urges the Board to grant relief by awarding the AFOUA w/20LC. 3.  He respectfully disagrees with the AFROTC recommendation regarding the DD Form 785, and reiterates his request that the Board vacate the DD Form 785 in its entirety. The AFROTC OPR asks the Board to consider the narrow legality of the DD Form 785 and nothing else. If the circumstances of this situation were such that he had been disenrolled from AFROTC and completed his degree as a civilian student without completion of any further military training or uniformed cadet service, then he would be compelled to concur with their recommendation, but that is not the case before the Board. The case before the Board presents a complex situation that reflects circumstances and events the AFROTC OPR wholly fails to consider. Much as a service member would evaluate an order given by a superior by considering the whole of the circumstances of a situation before determining a course of action, the Board must consider the whole of the situation and circumstances before determining what is right and just, not simply what is or was legally compliant on any one specific day. The complete circumstances clearly demonstrate the DD Form 785 was entirely without real practical effect for three years. Accordingly, the most appropriate action for the Board to take is to correct this injustice and grant his application to vacate the DD Form 785. Additionally, he respectfully requests the Board consider other potential avenues of relief to correct the injustice. The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit F. ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: ARPC/BP does not make a recommendation but states they received a request to address the applicant’s additional request: “In the event he is not selected for OTS or the clock runs out on his eligibility, the Board could order he be directly commissioned into the Inactive Ready Reserve (IRR) with a retroactive commissioning date, with appropriate promotions to first lieutenant and captain based on service that would have transpired, then release him from the IRR effective a date of the Board 's choosing.” ARPC/PB states if the Board directs a commission into the IRR with a retroactive commissioning date, the applicant’s name and required information would be placed on a scroll for promotion to the grade of first lieutenant effective two years from the established commissioning date. If applicable, he would also be eligible for promotion to the grade of captain after two additional year’s time-in-grade as a first lieutenant. The complete ARPC/PB advisory is at Exhibit G. AFRS/RSO does not make a recommendation, but addresses the applicant’s requests as follows: a.  In response to the applicant’s request to “compel his selection for Officer Training School (OTS) - The Board could direct the OTS Selection Board to select him for OTS,” RSO states the OTS Board does not select candidates for officer training. The OTS Board scores a record based on a whole person concept taking into account three areas: Experience/Leadership, Education/Aptitude, and Potential/Adaptability. The AFRS/CC makes the selection recommendation based on board scores and Air Force requirement. AETC/CC is the selection authority for officer training, in accordance with AFI 36-2013, Officer Training School (OTS) and Enlisted Commissioning Programs (ECPS). b.  In response to the applicant’s request to “recommend selection for OTS - The Board or the Secretary of the Air Force could attach a letter to his OTS application package recommending the OTS Selection Board strongly consider his selection,” RSO states this is a viable option, with the understanding that the letter falls under the scoring criteria of Experience/Leadership and would not guarantee selection. In the past, board members would not consider highly a letter from authorities who have no personal association or history with an applicant. The complete AFRS/RSO advisory, with attachment, is at Exhibit H. 1.  AFROTC/CC does not make a recommendation. AFROTC/CC states the applicant requests his commission be granted due to his having graduated from Texas A&M University. However, he did not compete for or earn an Enrollment Allocation (EA) through the Professional Officer Course (POC) Selection Process (PSP), nor did he attend mandatory AFROTC Field Training (FT). Earning an EA and successful completion of FT are required in order for a cadet to be selected into the upper level AFROTC program on a commissioning track. The applicant claims that he competed for selection into a commissioning program. This is true in that he was accepted into the Airman Scholarship and Commissioning Program (ASCP). However, mere acceptance into ASCP does not guarantee acceptance into the upper level AFROTC program. Additionally, the applicant claims that he completed sufficient military training to allow him to serve as a well-qualified commissioned officer, but this is not an accurate statement. Earning an EA and successfully completing AFROTC FT would have allowed him to enter the Professional Officer Course. Instead, he remained a member of the Texas A&M Corps of Cadets in a special student status. Simply graduating from a Senior Military College and participating in the University Corps of Cadets, as the applicant did, does not meet the requirements for earning a commission through AFROTC. 2.  Furthermore, due to the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy, when the applicant was disenrolled from AFROTC, he was never recalled to active duty to complete his enlisted service commitment. ASCP members who are disenrolled from AFROTC arc typically required to return to enlisted active duty to complete their enlisted service commitment, if needed. The applicant was advised of this possibility when he was issued his Letter of Notification of Disenrollment Action in accordance with AFI 36-2011 and AFOATS 36-2011 on 20 September 2000. Instead, the applicant was released without further commitment due to the provisions of the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy. 3.  Additionally, the applicant requests that AFROTC change the rating on his DD Form 785, Section IV, from “5” to a “1.” The validity of his rating was addressed in their previous advisory. The rating of “5” is valid and was consistent with his circumstances at the time of disenrollment. It is not AFROTC policy to change DD Forms 785 to reflect subsequent changes lo law or policy, but rather AFROTC ensures the forms comply with law and policy at the time they are issued. It should be noted, however, that the rating of “5” in Section IV of the DD Form 785 does not render the applicant ineligible to return to service in the Air Force, but rather, it is merely a recommendation for future acceptance into other officer training programs. All service commissioning programs should consider the fact that homosexuality no longer prohibits military service and take that into consideration when reviewing his DD Form 785. The complete AFROTC/CC advisory is at Exhibit I. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 1.  In further support of his requests the applicant provides a six-page rebuttal, with attachments, in which he responds to each additional advisory opinion point-by-point. He provides comments, states his differences of opinion, and reiterates his previous contentions and provides additional opinions as well as acceptance of, and suggestions for, direct commissioning based on the ARPC/PB Advisory. One exception noted is that he acknowledges the AFRS/RSO memorandum, which states that his OTS application will not be permitted to go forward because his undergraduate GPA does not meet the minimum requirement. 2.  The applicant summarizes that the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) policy did an incredible amount of damage to a lot of very good people, and today he finds himself being harmed again by DADT because the effects of the harassment he faced (low grades) are the sole factor that now kills his application to OTS and runs out the Air Force clock for the rest of his life. He acknowledges there must be objective criteria for evaluating thousands of OTS applicants, and as much as he believes his circumstances mitigate the grade issue, he accepts that the responsibility of the OTS Selection Board is not to correct the injustices of DADT but to enforce requirements set forth by the Air Force Recruiting Service. He respectfully asks the Board to grant him this relief. The evidence presented in this BCMR application clearly demonstrates such relief would be supported by his having completed equivalent requirements for commissioning. Moreover, his life, works, and deeds have shown he has continued serving his fellow Americans honorably in a way that will reflect great credit upon the Air Force by including him among those who have been commissioned as officers. The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit K. 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.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice that warrants partial relief. With regard to the applicant’s request for his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, to be corrected in item 13, Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, to include the Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM), we note that AFPC/DPSID recommends approval. We agree with their recommendation. Additionally, we concur with the administrative corrections to include his received awards that were not reflected in his records. The applicant requests that the DD Form 785, Record of Disenrollment from Officer Candidate – Type Training, dated 18 December 2000, be vacated in its entirety; or, if not vacated, amended to upgrade the rating in Section IV from “5” - Definitely Not Recommended To “1” - Highly Recommended. We note that in accordance with AFROTCI 36-2011, Cadet Operations, paragraph 11.16.2, there is no official provision to vacate the DD Form 785 since upon disqualification, the DD Form 785 is the only permanent record of disenrollment. In addition, the AFROTC/CC attests that the rating of “5” in Section IV of the DD Form 785 is valid and was consistent with the circumstances at the time of applicant’s disenrollment. Additionally, the rating is merely a recommendation for future acceptance into other officer training programs and does not render the applicant ineligible to return to service in the Air Force, either as an officer or an enlisted member. We understand and agree that the applicant's disenrollment from Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps (AFROTC) and the accompanying DD Form 785, were properly executed in accordance with the law and the applicable policies and Air Force instructions in effect at the time. Even so, based on the fact that there was no validated evidence of misconduct on the part of the applicant, we are persuaded the DD Form 785, should be corrected in section III, Reasons and Circumstances for Disenrollment, to remove the statement pertaining to his sexual preference given that the reason for his disenrollment, though voluntarily imparted, was based solely on the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) policy in place at that time. Based on the repeal of DADT, and in the interest of equity and justice, we believe this statement should be stricken from his DD Form 785. Additionally, with regard to the applicant’s request that as an alternative to AFROTC commissioning, he be selected to attend Officer Training School (OTS) with a basic officer training class date that will allow him to be commissioned prior to September 2015, we believe some relief is appropriate. We note the AFRS/RSO memorandum indicating the applicant’s undergraduate GPA does not meet the 3.0 minimum GPA requirement for the Air Force Line Officer Program; however, in light of the repeal of the DADT policy and the premise for the applicant’s disenrollment from AFROTC, we believe it would be appropriate for his OTS application to be considered by the OTS board with a slight modification. Since the applicant’s current undergraduate GPA does not meet the 3.0 minimum GPA requirement, we recommend that, as an exception to policy, the minimum GPA requirement from the undergraduate institution be waived in consideration of his OTS application. We would like the applicant to be mindful that whether or not he is successful in his OTS endeavor will depend on the needs of the service and will also be dependent upon his fulfilling any other OTS application requirements. Our recommendation in no way guarantees participation in any program or that he will be allowed to return to any branch of the service. Nonetheless, we believe the correction stated above provides the applicant proper and fitting relief. Therefore, the applicant’s various other alternate forms of relief with regard to OTS, AFROTC and his request for a direct commission are not favorably considered. Accordingly, we recommend his records be corrected as indicated below. 4.  Notwithstanding our determination above, insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice concerning the AFOUA w/2BOLC and that a letter from the AFBCMR or the Secretary of the Air Force be submitted on the applicant’s behalf for selection for OTS. We took careful notice of the applicant's complete submission to include his rebuttals in judging the merits of the case; however, we are not persuaded the evidence submitted is sufficient to override the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility. Therefore, we adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice regarding the following requests. With regard to the applicant’s request that his DD Form 214, be corrected in item 13, to include the Air Force Outstanding Unit Award with two Bronze Oak Leaf Clusters (AFOUA w/2BOLC), we note AFPC/DPSID states they were unable to verify the applicant was assigned to any additional units that were awarded the Air Force Outstanding Unit Award during his period of service with the units, thus, rendering him ineligible for award of the Air Force Outstanding Unit Award with two Bronze Oak Leaf Clusters. While the applicant may believe he is deserving of the AFOUA w/2BOLC, sufficient evidence has not been provided which would persuade us otherwise. Lastly, with respect to the applicant’s request that the AFBCMR or the Secretary of the Air Force attach a recommendation for selection for OTS to his application package is not possible. Neither the AFBCMR or the Secretary of the Air have a personal association or history with the applicant to produce a letter of recommendation that appropriately outlines his experience and leadership capabilities and therefore, this request is also not favorably considered. 5.  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 issue(s) involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to the APPLICANT be corrected to show that: a.  His DD Form 785, Record of Disenrollment from Officer Candidate – Type Training, dated 18 December 2000, be corrected in section III, Reasons and Circumstances for Disenrollment, to remove the statement “On 25 September 2000, (Applicant) voluntarily notified his AFROTC unit commander that he was homosexual.” b.  As an exception to policy, the minimum GPA requirement from the undergraduate institution be waived and his OTS application be considered by the non-rated board. The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-04618 in Executive Session on 5 August 2014 and 12 September 2014, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: All members voted to correct the records as recommended. The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-04618 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 25 September 2013, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Record Exhibit C. Letter, AFROTC/CC, dated 18 December 2013. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 28 February 2014. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 March 2014. Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 14 April 2014, w/atchs. Exhibit G. Letter, ARPC/PB dated 21 May 2014. Exhibit H. Message, AFRS/RSO, dated 30 May 2014, w/atchs. Exhibit I. Letter, AFROTC/CC, dated 19 June 2014. Exhibit J. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 June 2014. Exhibit K. Letter, Applicant, dated 20 July 2014, w/atchs.