RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02032 COUNSEL: HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. His numerical rating in Section IV, of his DD Form 785, Record of Disenrollment from Officer Candidate – Type Training, be changed from a “3-Should Not Be Considered Without Weighing the Needs of the Service Against the Reasons for Disenrollment,” to a “1- Highly Recommended.” 2. He be readmitted to the Cadet Wing at the United States Air Force Academy. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The action disenrolling and separating him from status as a cadet at the United States Air Force Academy (USAFA) should be set aside. His outstanding civilian and enlisted service record reflect his commitment to excellence. He accepted responsibility for his misconduct. The Article 15 action does not mean that a cadet must be disenrolled. Counsel represented another cadet with similar disciplinary actions who also received an Article 15; however, after a Military Review Committee (MRC), he was allowed to graduate from USAFA and be commissioned. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the USAFA on 25 Jun 09. On 26 Apr 12, the applicant received an Article 15 for wrongfully possessing alcohol in the USAFA dormitories and was derelict in the performance of his duties in that he willfully failed to refrain from providing alcohol to Air Force Cadets who were under the legal drinking age of 21. On 4 May 12, the Commandant of Cadets directed that the applicant’s misconduct be reviewed by a Hearing Officer. On 24 May 12, the hearing convened, the Hearing Officer found by a preponderance of the evidence that the applicant committed all of the offenses as alleged. On 25 Jul 12, the Superintendent, USAFA directed that the applicant be disenrolled, assigned a rating of three, and recommended to the Secretary of the Air Force (SECAF) that he be ordered to active duty in enlisted status for a period of three years. On 30 Nov 12, the SECAF directed that the applicant be separated from cadet status and assigned to active duty in an enlisted status for two years. On 28 Jan 13, the applicant enlisted in the regular Air Force. On 27 Jan 15, the applicant was discharged honorably and credited with three years, five months, and six days of active service. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: USAFA/JA recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. The applicant’s DD Form 785 correctly states the circumstances surrounding his situation at the time of his disenrollment from the USAFA. The section IV remarks are a continuation of the comments in section III. The rating of “3” on the DD Form 785 is most consistent for the cases where the cadet is failing to “meet or exceed minimum standards.” A rating of “1” in Section IV of the DD Form 785 is reserved for cadets that have exceeded the standards. The applicant received Article 15 action for wrongfully possessing alcohol in the USAFA dormitories and was derelict in the performance of his duties in that he willfully failed to refrain from providing alcohol to Air Force Cadets who were under the legal drinking age of 21. This was his second incident with bringing alcohol into to the USAFA Cadet Dormitories. In the fall of 2011, the applicant admitted to his Academy Military Trainer (AMT) that he brought alcohol in the dorms with cadets that were under the legal drinking age of 21. The applicant’s offense was particularly egregious and not considered an average candidate’s actions. His rating was assigned by the Superintendent after having considered the circumstances surrounding the applicant’s misconduct along with all the other entries in the applicant’s personnel folder. Regarding the applicant’s request to be reinstated to the Cadet Wing, recommend denial, the applicant can use his enlisted record to apply for other commissioning sources but his disenrollment was based on serious misconduct where the applicant was on notice per the Commandant of Cadets Instruction CoCI 51-201, Cadet Counseling, Discipline, Rehabilitation, and Monitoring, identifies a second alcohol-related offense of any type will result in further UCMJ action–likely an Article 15-and disenrollment from USAFA. While his enlisted service is commendable, it does not provide a basis for reinstatement to USAFA. The applicant disputes that receipt of an Article 15 warrants disenrollment and, through his attorney, provides an example of another cadet that was allowed to remain in the Cadet Wing after he was charged with underage drinking and raping a female cadet after a party. After an Article 32 hearing, charges against the cadet were dismissed but he received an Article 15 for underage drinking on multiple occasions. The cadet’s misconduct was reviewed by a MRC and the cadet was not disenrolled and was allowed to graduate and be commissioned. The applicant was disenrolled based on facts specific to his case. Counsel’s attempt to compare sentences on two factually distinct cadet disenrollment cases is inappropriate as the facts of each case must be assessed individually and the command received a legal recommendation on each individual case. The applicant’s disenrollment was legally sufficient whether he received an Article 15, Letter of Reprimand (LOR, an Air Force Cadet Wing (AFCW) Form 10) documenting the misconduct. The substantiated misconduct was presumptive disenrollment misconduct IAW Cadet Wing instructions and policies regarding the Cadet Alcohol Related Discipline System. A complete copy of the USAFA/JA evaluation is at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Counsel notes that a “3” rating in Block IV, DD Form 785 is usually assigned to cadets who resign in-lieu-of action under or conviction for a breach of the honor code. The applicant received this rating even though neither of those conditions applied to him. The applicant has leadership potential for service as a commissioned officer. There are cases where exceptions should be made on individual cases when circumstances allow and this is such a case. A complete copy of the applicant’s rebuttal 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 notice of the applicant’s complete submission, including Counsel’s rebuttal response, in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice. While Counsel’s arguments and assertions are duly noted, we are not convinced that any form of corrective action is warranted. While Counsel argues that he successfully represented another cadet whose misconduct was allegedly more egregious than the applicant, the implication being that the applicant’s disenrollment was somehow inequitable or disproportionate to the circumstances, we do not find this argument sufficient to conclude that corrective action is warranted. In this respect, we agree with the comments of the OPR indicating that each case was judged on its own unique circumstances. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief. 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-2014-02032 in Executive Session on 19 Mar 15, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence pertaining AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-02032 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 18 Apr 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, USAFA/JA, dated 23 Sep 14. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Oct 14. Exhibit E. Counsel Rebuttal, dated 2 Jan 15.