RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-04570 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. His military records be corrected to reflect that the highest rank he held was 2nd Lieutenant (2Lt, O-1). 2. His records be cleared of all unsubstantiated Air Force allegations, which damaged his security clearance and ability to work in most jobs he trained for. 3. The Air Force acknowledge that he was treated unfairly and his rights were disregarded. 4. The following punitive charges be brought against Col XXXXX., Col XXXXX and Lt Col XXXXX: a. Discrimination. b. Adultery (for Col XXXXX only). c. Conduct unbecoming. d. Unlawful detention. e. Refusing him legal counsel. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: In the Fall of 1980 Col XXXXX and Lt Col XXXXX called him into Col XXXXX.’s office and told him that a black man should not be married to a white woman and they were going to do something about it. Lt Col XXXXX told him that by the time he dug himself out from under the paperwork they were going to put on him, his wife would be gone. Lt Col XXXXX continually degraded and disrespected him during his time at the university. On 4 Feb 1981, he received his commission (see Reserve Action Notice, dated 29 Jan 1981). He completed the AFROTC program a full semester prior to his graduation. He provides a college transcript as proof. Approximately one year before he was disenrolled, he was wrongfully accused by his superiors of cheating on the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) by having his wife take the test for him. When it was found to be untrue (see Educational Testing Service letter, dated 7 Jul 1980), he was accused of abusing his spouse, which was also untrue (see Det Form Letter 2, dated 6 Oct 1980 and Washington State University letter, dated 20 Aug 1996). Prior to his disenrollment, he was held without legal cause in the basement of the ROTC building for three days and he was denied military or civilian counsel during this time. The accusations were false and he was intentionally misinformed of his rights during the disciplinary/disenrollment process. He was not afforded the right to defend himself or appeal his superiors’ decisions regarding the accusations. In Feb 1981, he caught Col XXXXX in bed with his wife for a second time. The first time was in Apr 1980. Col XXXXX told him to keep his mouth shut and he would ensure he received his commission. If he did not keep quiet, he would be buried so deep in problems the Air Force would not want him. This was the second threat from him. His supervisors retaliated against him by disenrolling him from the AFROTC program. On 2 Mar 1981, he was wrongfully disenrolled from the Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps (AFROTC) Program, almost a full month after his commission date and consequently did not retire at the proper rank. His disenrollment was based on manufactured accusations and charges that his detachment commander knew were false. His current retirement should be based on having met the requirements of, and actually being commissioned as a 2Lt. Col XXXXX, who was the investigator and the instigator of the alleged “domestic problems,” and the man who was having an affair with his wife, was himself being investigated for sexual harassment (see newspaper article). His chain of command prohibited his civilian counsel from participating in the proceedings. The command openly discriminated against him. His requests for military counsel and attempts to get help from the Inspector General (IG) were ignored and covered up (see DAIG-AC letter, dated 4 Sep 1981). He requested a copy of his military records from the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) and found two DD Forms 785, Record of Disenrollment from Officer Candidate Type Training, that were signed by Col XXXXX, with two different reasons for disenrollment listed under section III. Neither accusation was found to be true in any court of law or military organization. He originally enlisted with his birth name, XXXXX XXXXX, and attended AFROTC with the same name. After he was disenrolled from the program, he decided to change his name to protect his privacy. His former superiors from the AFROTC program were harassing him at each of his subsequent assignments, by calling his place of duty and his supervisors. In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal statement, copies of a Declaration of Legal Name Change, Reserve Action Notice, dated 29 Jan 1981; Certificates of Appointment, Certificates of Training, DD Forms 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty; letters of recommendation, Enlisted Evaluation Reports, Discharge Certificates, a newspaper article, and other voluminous documents. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant contracted with the AFROTC on 23 Jan 1979. According to a DD Form 785, dated 2 Mar 1981, the AFROTC Detachment 905 commander initiated disenrollment action against the applicant under the provisions of AFR 45-48, Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC), and AFROTCR 45 - 10 (Undesirable Traits of Character). Section III, Reason and Circumstances for Disenrollment, states “His history of domestic problems has created for him a barrage of allegations that have resulted in an investigation. The detailed report of investigation is attached.” In a HQ AFROTC/RRFD letter, dated 29 Dec 2011, AFROTC states disenrollment files could not be located for the applicant. Files are maintained for a maximum of three years after the date of disenrollment then are destroyed in accordance with Records Disposition Schedule, table 10-14, rule 10. On 28 Apr 1981, the applicant was honorably discharged from the Air Force Reserves. The following is a resume of the applicant’s military service: Branch Inclusive Period Discharge Marines 4 Jul 1964 thru 13 Dec 1968 Honorable Army 4 Oct 1970 thru 3 Jul 1973 Honorable Navy 3 Aug 1974 thru 28 Jun 1977 Honorable Navy Reserves 29 Jun 1977 thru 19 Dec 1979 Honorable Air Force Reserves 20 Dec 1979 thru 28 Apr 1981 Honorable ________________________________________________________________ THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFOATS/JA recommends denial. JA states per the Air Force Records Information Management System, Disenrollment from Officer Candidate-Type Training records are destroyed after three years. The three year date begins on the date of disenrollment. According to the records provided by the applicant, he was disenrolled from AFROTC in Mar 1981, so his records would have been destroyed in Mar 1984. During disenrollment, the cadet is given an opportunity to submit a rebuttal or response. If a cadet elects to submit a rebuttal or response, that document is kept with the package and reviewed at all levels along with the report of investigation. The final disenrollment decision, made by HQ AFROTC, would have considered any response provided the applicant. The decision to disenroll him from AFROTC and not allow him to commission in the United States Air Force was not punitive in nature, but merely an activation of the terms of the contract he voluntarily signed at the time he enlisted in the Obligated Reserve Section of the Inactive Reserves, and was in keeping with national AFROTC policy. The scheduled destruction of his record three years after his disenrollment makes it impossible to present the specific facts of his case. Therefore, JA cannot provide details regarding the disenrollment process. This application was not submitted within the three-year window prescribed by AFI 36-2603, paragraph 3.5.7. JA states the requested relief in this case should be denied due to the fact that there are no records to prove that he was or was not given his due process. The complete JA evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In addition to the obvious "cover up" of his superiors’ misconduct while he was in the ROTC program, his superiors discriminated against him because of his race and his affiliation with a woman of another race. His former wife and Lt XXXXX attempted to murder him, which Col XXXXX and Lt Col XXXXX sanctioned. The command was more concerned about covering up the infidelities and criminal acts of Lt Col XXXXX than protecting the rights and welfare of a cadet in their command. He contacted the IG who did nothing about the allegations he made against Lt Col XXXXX and his former wife. His current wife is a witness and is willing to testify, if needed. During this period at ROTC he was lied to, harassed, falsely accused and discriminated against by his command. He waited a month after his graduation for orders that he knew Lt Col M. had received at least three months prior to his graduation. These orders reflected that he was to be commissioned on his graduation date. The command waited until 2 Mar - his 35th birthday, to tell him that he would not be commissioned because he was too old. They did not provide him any documentation. He never refused his commission, so the command did not have the authority to disenroll him after he had already graduated. He never received orders to go to any command as an enlisted man, nor did he ever receive a discharge from the Air Force. After he was shot, the command just made him "disappear." This has continued to cause him problems many years later. He has submitted all of the evidence required to support his claim. It is not his fault that his records which should have been maintained by the Air Force were disposed of. This part of his past has been haunting him for years and he requests that justice be made. His complete response is at Exhibit E. ________________________________________________________________ FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE BOARD: After careful consideration of the applicant’s request and the evidence of record, we find the application untimely. The applicant did not file within three years after the alleged error or injustice was discovered as required by Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552 and Air Force Instruction 36- 2603. The applicant has not shown a sufficient reason for the delay in filing on a matter now dating back over 30 years, which has greatly complicated the ability to determine the merits of his case. We are also not persuaded the record raises issues of error or injustice which require resolution on the merits based on the lack of official documentation to support his request. Thus, we cannot conclude it would be in the interest of justice to excuse applicant’s failure to file in a timely manner. ________________________________________________________________ DECISION OF THE BOARD: The application was not timely filed and it would not be in the interest of justice to waive the untimeliness. It is the decision of the Board, therefore, to reject the application as untimely. ________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 5 Sep 2012, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC- 2011-04570: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 25 Oct 2011, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Holm Center/JA, dated 17 Jul 2012, w/atch. Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 25 Jul 2012. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 21 Aug 2012.