RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: BC-2011-04504 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 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 “4- Recommended if Physical Defects are Corrected or if Such Defects Are Not Disqualifying for Other Reasons,” or a “5-Definitely Not Recommended.” _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: A rating of either a ”4” or “5” would more accurately reflect his aptitude for continued service in an Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps (AFROTC) commission program. He signed the DD Form 785 before his Air Officer Commanding (AOC) completed Sections III and IV of the form. He signed a blank DD Form 785 because the AOC said it was standard procedure to do so. The actions taken by his AOC were unprofessional and unjust and have denied him the opportunity to successfully compete for readmission to the United States Air Force Academy (USAFA) and seriously inhibit his ability to attain a commission via other sources. The applicant does not provide any evidence in support of his appeal. The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 28 June 2007, the applicant entered the USAFA to begin basic training. After the fall semester of the 2008-2009 academic year, he was recommended for disenrollment by an Academic Review Committee (ARC) based on his academic deficiencies. On 13 February 2009, the USAFA Superintendant concurred with the ARC recommendation and the applicant was disenrolled from the USAFA. The applicant had a 1.51 Grade Point Average (GPA) and anything under a 2.0 GPA is considered deficient. The applicant received an honorable discharge characterization and was assigned a rating of “3-Should Not Be Considered without Weighing the Needs of the Service against the Reasons for Disenrollment” on his DD Form 785. The remaining relevant facts, extracted from the applicant’s military service record, are contained in the evaluation provided by the Air Force office of primary responsibility at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: USAFA/JA recommends denial. JA states the applicant’s DD Form 785 correctly states the circumstances surrounding his situation at the time of his disenrollment from the USAFA. The applicant clearly does not understand the DD Form 785 numerical ratings and the fact that by granting his request, it would actually be making the administrative consequences of his situation worse. Although he believes changing his rating from a “3” to a “4” or “5” on the DD Form 785 is going to make his readmission to the USAFA or entry into another commissioning program more likely, the opposite is actually true. Clearly a DD Form 785 rating of “4” is not merited in this case, as that rating is reserved for individuals disenrolled for medical reasons. The governing Air Force Instruction’s definition for a 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” but, still has served honorably. A rating of “5” is traditionally reserved for former USAFA cadets that have demonstrated a lengthy pattern of misconduct. A rating of “5” is a means to differentiate cadet cases where the disenrolled cadet has often committed Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) infractions from those physical fitness/academic deficiency cases where the former cadet does not engage in illegal behavior or significant cadet level misconduct; yet, still end up receiving a rating of “3” on their DD Form 785 because of their inability to maintain minimum standards. The applicant is also confused as to who accomplishes the DD Form 785. It is not the AOC, but rather the Superintendent, who assigns the DD Form 785 numerical rating and approves the language that goes into the DD Form 785. The applicant also alleges he signed a DD Form 785 before his AOC completed Sections III and IV of the form. However, cadets do not sign the DD Form 785. The contested rating was assigned by the Superintendent after having considered the circumstances surrounding the applicant’s academic deficiencies along with all the other entries in his personnel folder. If the applicant desires to seek a commission by reapplying to the USAFA or applying to the AFROTC, he will be afforded an opportunity to explain his USAFA transcripts and record during the officer accession training program application process as a means to supplement the DD Form 785. The complete JA evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 24 January 2012, for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). As of this date, this office has received no response. _________________________________________________________________ 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 took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that 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 relief sought in this application. _________________________________________________________________ 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-2011-04504 in Executive Session on 7 June 2012, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2011-04504: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 1 Nov 11. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, USAFA/JA, dated 3 Jan 12. Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 24 Jan 12.