RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-02200
INDEX CODE:  108.00
	XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  

	XXXXXXXXXXXXX	HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her records, specifically her DD Form 785, Record of Disenrollment from Officer Candidate-Type Training, Section IV, be changed from “Definitely Not Recommended” to “Highly Recommended”; she be reimbursed $15,480 she repaid the Air Force after wrongfully being separated from Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps (AFROTC); and she receive an Air Force commission as a second lieutenant.  

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was victimized by repeated sexual harassment by active duty and Reserve of the Air Force members; raped by an active duty Office of Special Investigations (OSI) agent; and wrongfully separated from AFROTC.  

In support of her appeal, the applicant submits a statement from her father (also her attorney); a copy of an AFOSI Investigative Communication; a copy of a Cadet Personnel Action Request recommending her disenrollment from AFROTC for unsuitability; a copy of her disenrollment notification with attached DD Form 785; and documentation surrounding her complaint and investigation of the alleged sexual harassment and assault.  The applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

According to available records, on 16 November 2000, the applicant enlisted as a cadet in a 2-year AFROTC program at the University of North Texas.  In July - August 2001, she attended a 3-week OSI orientation program at McGuire AFB, New Jersey.  In August 2001, during the OSI orientation, the applicant participated in an orientation flight to Lajes Air Base, Azores.   

On 5 February 2002, after applying for AFOSI Special Agent duty, the applicant was interviewed by AFOSI agents when the AFOSI suitability investigation revealed derogatory information involving the applicant.  The investigation revealed narcotics use, excessive alcohol consumption, unprofessional relationships, and psychological counseling she received for shoplifting and a suicide gesture.  The investigation also revealed the applicant had withheld information while completing her initial security clearance questionnaire.  After breaking down during the initial interview, the applicant requested a follow-up interview for 7 February 2002.  An AFOSI Investigative Communication dated 12 February 2002, documented the follow-up interview and revealed the applicant confessed to smoking marijuana more than a dozen times from 1997-2001, contrary to her initial claim that she had only smoked marijuana on two different occasions.  Additionally, the applicant admitted to ingesting what were purported to be hallucinogenic mushrooms while living in Denmark in 2001.  Allegations also surfaced that the applicant frequently drank an excessive amount of alcohol and witness interviews revealed she could not control her actions while under the influence of alcohol.  The applicant linked information about her sexual conduct to parties, in which too much alcohol was consumed.  The applicant provided complete information regarding unprofessional relationships she had with an active duty captain and an active duty non-commissioned officer AFOSI Special Agent while on Professional Development Training (PDT), at McGuire AFB, NJ, from July - August 2001.  During the interview, the applicant revealed she received professional psychological counseling subsequent to a shoplifting arrest in 2001.  Lastly, she disclosed a suicidal gesture she made when she was a high school senior because she was upset with her father because he grounded her for 11 months.  The preparer of the report indicated that the applicant had lied to AFOSI to be an acceptable candidate and that she may have only come forward with the truth when she realized that AFOSI would uncover the information she had initially withheld.  The communication report concludes that the applicant was not recommended for AFOSI Special Agent duty as she could not be placed in a position of trust.  

On 19 February 2002, the applicant was served with a Letter of Notification of Disenrollment Action for failure to disclose frequent marijuana use and the use of hallucinogenic mushrooms.  

On 1 April 2002, the applicant’s father called the Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC) Sexual Harassment/Unlawful Discrimination Hotline alleging his daughter suffered sexual harassment on three occasions; in July 2001 while on a tour at McGuire AFB, NJ; in August 2001 while enroute to Lajes AB, Azores; and again in August 2001 while at Lajes AB.  On 2 April 2002, the applicant followed-up the hotline complaint with a 3-page written statement to the AFPC Military Equal Opportunity (MEO) Branch detailing the accounts of the alleged sexual harassment.  

On 9 May 2002, the AFROTC detachment commander recommended the applicant be disenrolled from AFROTC.  The commander stated that the administrative investigation did not definitely show that the applicant used marijuana more frequently than reported or her use of hallucinogenic mushrooms; however, in his opinion it clearly showed a pattern of deception that made her unsuitable for military service.  

On 23 June 2002, an Military Equal Opportunity Complaint Summary was opened to investigate the sexual harassment allegations.  

On 25 June 2002, the approval authority approved the recommendation that the applicant be disenrolled from AFROTC effective 2 July 2002, her scholarship entitlements be terminated effective 11 May 2001, and that recoupment action regarding repayment of her scholarship debt be initiated.   

The MEO investigation dated 3 August 2002 indicates the allegations of sexual harassment were unsubstantiated.  On 6 August 2002, the staff judge advocate concurred with the findings of the MEO investigative officer.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFOATS/JA recommends that no change be made to the applicant’s military records.  It is JA’s opinion that her DD Form 785 should not be changed, as the applicant’s statements and lack of maturity do not make her a suitable candidate for commission.  In addition, it is JA’s opinion that the applicant pay all monies owed as ordered on 2 July 2002 and no commission should be offered to her.  

JA states in accordance with Air Force Officer Accession and Training Squadron Instruction (AFOATSI) 36-2011, Chapter 6, paragraph 6.8.3, Failure to Maintain Military Retention Standards (FTMMRS), a cadet may be disenrolled for undesirable character traits and inaptitude to include failure to attain the level of maturity expected of an officer candidate.  The applicant was effectively disenrolled from AFROTC on 2 July 2002 for FTMMRS because she failed to be truthful about drug use. 

It is JA’s opinion that there is no evidence the applicant did not use marijuana during various times, only that she lied either to AFROTC or to AFOSI.  Either way it makes her an unsuitable candidate for commission and prohibits AFROTC to change the applicant’s status to “Highly Recommended” on the DD Form 785.  Regarding the $15,480 debt, AFROTC/CC has the authority to determine whether recoupment action is appropriate, and this appears to be such a case.  The applicant did not complete AFROTC requirements; therefore, she cannot be commissioned as a second lieutenant.  The AFOATS/JA evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant’s counsel states the advisory opinion fails to address the merits of the case by not discussing her sexual harassment or rape.  The failure to discuss these incidents puts all the blame on the applicant, and none of the blame on other Air Force members responsible for committing crimes against her.  There has been a rush to judgment about the applicant’s case from the onset of the disenrollment action against her.  The AFROTC/CC promised to withhold taking final action on the applicant’s disenrollment until the IG and MEO investigations were complete.  However, AFROTC Detachment 835/CC, processed her disenrollment action prior to the investigation’s completion; therefore, denying his client an opportunity to show that she was victimized and deserved to be commissioned.  

The applicant’s counsel points out the applicant has repaid all of her debt and no money is still owed.  In addition, it should be recognized that the applicant completed all coursework for AFROTC prior to her disenrollment.  The counsel states that the Air Force’s use of an Non-Commissioned Officer to write a legal opinion is indicative of the lack of scrutiny that his client’s complaint has received from Air Force officials.  The counsel’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 error or injustice.  We note the applicant has been afforded appeal rights concerning the decision in her hotline complaint of alleged sexual harassment and the Air Force office of primary responsibility confirms the case is currently still open pending appeal.  Therefore, our comments are limited only to addressing the issue of her AFROTC disenrollment.  According to the evidence of record, the applicant admitted withholding information on her history of drug use, once to AFROTC and twice to AFOSI.  This, in our opinion, is sufficient evidence to conclude the applicant was unfit to be a commissioned officer in the Air Force.  Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Accordingly, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling 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 this application in Executive Session on 18 January 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2004-02200:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 Jul 04, with attachments.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFOATS/JA, dated 23 Aug 04. 
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Aug 04.
	Exhibit F.  Counsel’s Rebuttal, undated.