RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2016-02841

						COUNSEL:  YES

						HEARING DESIRED:  YES 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

She be reinstated to the United States Air Force Academy (USAFA), without prejudice, or her records be corrected to allow her eligibility for officer training.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Counsel, on behalf of the applicant, contends the applicant was dis-enrolled from the academy and discharged from the Air Force due to her failure to successfully complete probation and engaging in a pattern of minor misconduct, and separated with an honorable characterization of service.  Prior to this disciplinary action, the applicant was wrongly placed on aptitude probation due to false allegations, miscommunications, and an inherent bias against her.  The applicant’s outstanding record prior to these incidents provide ample grounds for her reinstatement in the academy.

After entering the academy, the applicant became a member of the academy basketball team, earning a starting position for three years running.  Despite her success on the court, the applicant was berated by the team coach, and removed from the team, for choosing to pursue a French study abroad program.

It was also during this period that the applicant experienced a number of significant personal losses.  In Sep 13, her aunt, with whom she had a close relationship, passed away.  Thirteen months later, her uncle, who was more like a father to the applicant, passed away.  Additionally, in Jul 14, her sponsor family moved out of the area, creating another loss to the applicant’s support network.

Shortly after the applicant’s removal from the basketball team in Dec 14, she was placed on aptitude probation for unexcused absences and inability to adapt to the standards expected of a cadet, despite the traditional punishment being demerits, confinement, loss of privileges, and setting up Squadron events.  She was also not informed of her option to fight the allegations which were the result of miscommunication.  Being placed on probation, and the resulting loss of her position on the French exchange program, caused the applicant significant stress, and subsequently, her first failing grade.

In Jan 15, the applicant agreed to be designated driver for an outing with a fellow cadet.  The applicant texted a friend asking her to text three other cadets requesting their locations.  The friend did so, posing as Cadet Command.  The applicant drove the cadet to a restaurant to meet the others, where they ate and consumed alcoholic beverages, then dropped them off at a local bar and returned to the academy.  Later that evening, upon receiving a text that the other cadets were ready to be picked up, the applicant left the academy, picked up her friends and then returned to the academy.

When it was learned the original texts requesting location did not come from Cadet Command, an investigation was initiated and the applicant was found to be at fault, and was issued a Letter of Reprimand.  Shortly afterward, the applicant was notified she was being recommended for disenrollment.  The recommendation to dis-enroll the applicant was made despite the applicant’s Group Cadet Review Board’s recommendation that she be retained.

Despite the disciplinary proceedings, the applicant continued to volunteer and contribute to academy programs, while pursuing various avenues of support to get her back on track.  Following her removal from the academy and transfer to the active duty Air Force, the applicant successfully completed her apprentice course and upgrade training.  

In Oct 16, the applicant was diagnosed with a benign neoplasm (tumor) of the pituitary gland.  While not cancerous, the tumor resulted in the applicant suffering from significant mood swings and had affected her judgment.  The applicant was dis-enrolled from the academy for what appeared to be a lapse in judgment, which can be attributed to the tumor that had been growing.

The applicant never lost her devotion to her country and continues to serve to the best of her abilities.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 28 Jun 12, the applicant initially entered the United States Air Force Academy.

On 13 Aug 15, the applicant was dis-enrolled from the United States Air Force Academy (USAFA).

On 21 Oct 15, the Secretary of the Air Force, through the Personnel Council, directed the applicant be transferred to the Air Force Reserve, in an enlisted status, and ordered to active duty for completion of the active duty service commitment incurred by attendance at USAFA, in accordance with Section 2005 of Title 10, United States Code.

On 21 Oct 15, the applicant was transferred to the Air Force Reserve.

On 6 Jan 16, the applicant was ordered to Extended Active Duty to fulfill a two (2) year Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC).

On 5 Jan 18, the applicant was furnished an Honorable discharge, and credited with 5 years, 3 months, and 23 days active service.

The applicant is currently serving in the Air Force Reserve.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memoranda prepared by USAFA/JA and the BCMR Medical Advisor, which are attached at Exhibits C and G.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

USAFA/JA recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of error or injustice.

On 12 Dec 14, the applicant was place on aptitude probation for multiple unexcused absences and failing to meet the standards expected of a USAFA cadet.  Three months later, the applicant received a Notice of Failed Probation for sharing Privacy Act information and leaving the base without authorization.  On 17 Feb 15, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand for the aforementioned violations.  In response, the applicant took full responsibility for her actions.  As a result, the Group Commander recommended disenrollment with her service characterized as Honorable.

Because the applicant incurred an Active Duty Service Commitment, the Secretary of the Air Force directed she be transferred to the Air Force Reserve, in an enlisted status, and ordered to active duty for completion of that commitment.

The applicant, through her counsel, alleges she was wrongly placed on aptitude probation due to false accusations, miscommunications, and an inherent bias against the applicant.

In accordance with Air Force Wing Cadet Instruction (AFWCI) 51-201, paragraph 4.12.3., aptitude probation is appropriate when a cadet’s ability to serve as a commissioned officer is called into question, and may be used where a cadet has demonstrated a pattern of poor conduct and/or judgment.  At the time the applicant was place on aptitude probation, she had already accumulated over 150 demerits, with aptitude probation being considered the recommended action for cadets receiving over 50 demerits.  While on aptitude probation, the applicant failed to adhere to the terms of her agreement, resulting in disenrollment from USAFA.

According to AFCWI 51-201, a cadet who receives 200 cumulative demerits before graduation is recommended to appear before the Cadet Wing Commander and Commandant, is ineligible for graduation with military distinction, and is considered for disenrollment from USAFA.  The applicant had accumulated 260 demerits, 60 demerits over the presumptive disenrollment threshold.  The applicant does not allege any of the demerits or adverse administrative actions she received were unjust or wrong except for her AFCW Form 10, Graduation Physical examination.  Even without taking into account the applicant’s failure to adhere to the terms in her probation agreement, disenrollment would still be the presumed course of action based on her cumulative career demerits.

A complete copy of the USAFA/JA evaluation is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant, through counsel, acknowledges and takes full responsibility for her actions that resulted in demerits.  She recognizes officers are held to a higher standard, and that their professional and personal behavior must be beyond reproach because officers must lead by example.  Her disenrollment from USAFA was a hard lesson learned, but she asks the Board to consider that individuals, especially young adults fresh out of high school, develop by having the latitude to make mistakes.  While the applicant acknowledges that she received numerous demerits for missing mandatory formations, she was not given sufficient opportunity to rebut or explain the mitigating circumstances that might have otherwise excused her.

The advisory opinion states the “record of 260 demerits is evidence that she was not suitable for officer commissioning nor reinstatement as a cadet.”   While 200 career demerits is presumptive disenrollment in accordance with Air Force Academy Instruction (AFAI) 36-3504, that presumption may be overcome based on consideration of other factors and a “whole person review.”  The Board should consider the applicant’s youth, the lack of support she received from her recently changed Air Officer Commanding (AOC) leading up to her disenrollment, and the personal and academic circumstances she was dealing with just prior to her disenrollment.  A “whole person review” of the applicant demonstrates her overall positive character and integrity.  Even knowing the incidents that formed the basis of the recommendation for disenrollment, the applicant’s AOC for two years during her tenure at USAFA, advocated for her retention.  As did the Group Cadet Review Board and numerous cadet peers, staff and instructors at the Air Force Academy, leaders of her church, leaders within the Air Force (to include a retired Air Force general officer), and members of the community.

Finally, counsel provided information regarding the applicant’s diagnosed benign neoplasm on her pituitary gland.  The applicant suffered from this benign neoplasm on her pituitary gland when she was a cadet at the Air Force Academy, and unfortunately, some of her poor decisions may have stemmed from the tumor negatively impacting her emotional behavior.  A radiologic examination report from 8 Sep 17 indicates the tumor on her pituitary gland is no longer present and the applicant no longer suffers from the negative impact on her emotional behavior.

The applicant has a unique ability to overcome adversity, and she uses her life experiences, including those as a cadet, to guide her current decision-making, as well as lead and guide the Airmen she works with.  It would be a great injustice, and a disservice to the Air Force, to not allow her the opportunity to prove herself as an officer.

A complete copy of the Applicant’s Rebuttal is at Exhibit F.

BCMR MEDICAL ADVISOR EVALUATION:

BCMR Medical Advisor recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of error or injustice.

In an addendum to the applicant’s application for Board consideration, the applicant’s counsel implicitly contends there was a causal and mitigating relationship between the applicant’s poor judgment in committing the infractions and the physiologic effects of a benign tumor of the pituitary gland, or words to that effect.  Extracts from the supplied medical evidence, including relevant evidence in the Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application (AHLTA) system, are provided in the effort to facilitate an informed Board decision 

On 30 Sep 16, while serving in active duty enlisted status, the applicant was seen at the Women’s Health Clinic at McChord Air Force Base, Washington.  Testing revealed an elevated fasting prolactin level, with a later MRI scan showing a “3 mm hypo-enhancing focus within the anterior pituitary, most likely representing a microadenoma, also referred to as a prolactinoma.”  The applicant was prescribed Cabergoline to treat the elevated prolactin levels, and briefed on potential side effects of headache, sense of being off balance, and nausea.

Upon follow up, the applicant reported a brief period of dizziness, which went away with her second dose of medication, but expressed concern for moodiness over the past several months.  Her provider acknowledged the applicant’s report of experiencing irritability and moodiness since beginning Cabergoline, also a recognized source of behavioral changes.  The applicant was advised to try relaxation techniques with recommended follow up if the symptoms got worse.

On 3 Nov 16, the applicant’s provider noted the applicant was doing well on Cabergoline, but increased the dosage to normalize the prolactin levels.  The provider also documented the applicant’s request for a memorandum regarding her diagnosis and prognosis for an application to the Air Force Academy.  In support of the applicant’s request, her military endocrinologist provided a memorandum, dated 3 Nov 16, summarizing her treatment for hyperprolactinemia and amenorrhea from a pituitary prolactinoma.  On 4 Apr 17, laboratory testing showed the applicant’s prolactin levels had returned to normal, and results from an MRI scan conducted on 2 Sep 17, were also normal.

The Medical Advisor concedes pituitary tumors may affect an individual’s mood or stress response at a given time.  In fact, patients with pituitary diseases may experience many emotional problems, including depression, anxiety, behavioral disturbances, and personality changes, above and beyond the many reactions these patients may have to the myriad of adjustments that they must make in their lives, according to one study.  In the case under review, the applicant’s microprolactinoma, albeit 3 mm in greatest dimension when discovered, had its clinical expression primarily on the applicant’s lactation function and, indirectly, upon her menstrual cycle through interaction with other hormone functions.

However, given the nature of the applicant’s multiple, relatively minor infractions, but significant in the context of expected Air Force Academy standards of conduct, and the failed probationary period she was offered,  the Medical Advisor could not conclusively attribute her reported actions to a mental deficiency caused by her pituitary microadenoma.  To the contrary, collectively considering the applicant’s otherwise reasonable academic performance, her strong commitment and performance in volunteer and sports activities, and the strong support for retention she received at many levels, this reviewer opines is not indicative of an individual with a mental defect that only selectively impairs her judgment in certain activities of life, but with no apparent adverse neurocognitive or behavioral impact upon other interactions.  Moreover, there is no evidence that the applicant was unable to distinguish the difference between right and wrong, or to choose the right in any of her life experiences.

A complete copy of the BCMR Medical Advisor evaluation is at Exhibit G.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the BCMR Medical Advisor evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 31 Jan 18 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit H).  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.

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, to include her rebuttal, in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of USAFA/JA and the BCMR Medical Advisor and adopt their rationales as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief.

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 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-2016-02841 in Executive Session on 27 Mar 18 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2016-02841 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 17 May 16, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Excerpt from Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, USAFA/JA, dated 29 Sep 16.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, Additional Applicant Documentation,
w/atch, 16 Nov 16.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 28 Aug 17, w/atch.
	Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant Rebuttal, dated 10 Oct 17,
w/atchs.
	Exhibit G.  Memorandum, BCMR Medical Advisor, dated
	29 Jan 18.
	Exhibit H.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 31 Jan 18, w/atch.

Pursuant to paragraph 1 of AFI 36-2603 (Title 32 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 865.1), it is certified a quorum was present at the Board's review and deliberations regarding AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2016-02841, and the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board's proceedings in the above entitled matter.