RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03488 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The DD Form 785, Record of Disenrollment from Officer Candidate- Type Training, dated 29 Mar 12, Block IV, “Evaluation to be Considered in the Future for Determining Acceptability for Other Officer Training,” be changed to reflect “1,” (Highly Recommended) or “2” (Recommended as an Average Candidate) rather than “5” (Definitely Not Recommended). ________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: While he was completing his training in an Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps (AFROTC) program, at Tulane University, he never committed any atrocities so egregious to warrant being barred from commissioning. His member of Congress also believes his disenrollment was unjustly harsh. He has received an honorable discharge and completed the AFROTC curriculum, and if the DD Form 785 is corrected he can receive a direct commission. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 3 May 12, the applicant was disenrolled from the AFROTC program under the provisions of AFI 36-2011, Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps Program, para 6.1.5, and AFROTCI 36-2011, Cadet Operations, para 11.4.2.3, for failure to maintain military retention standards. Specifically, he failed to maintain military retention standards to include failure to exercise the maturity and judgment expected of an officer candidate when he repeatedly demonstrated poor decision making ability and inadequate progress in adapting to the military environment, much less the demands of military officership. On 3 May 12, the applicant was honorably discharged from his assignment with Air Reserve Personnel Center (ARPC) (AFROTC) and furnished an honorable discharge certificate. ________________________________________________________________ THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Holm Center/JA recommends denial, stating, in part, that after a careful review of the disenrollment records and the report of investigation, AFROTC properly determined the applicant repeatedly failed to meet the standards expected of an officer candidate. His records were carefully reviewed through all levels of AFROTC and the decision to give him a "5" rating reflects a fair, consistent, and impartial evaluation for all AFROTC cadets on a national level. While this response to his application may not be a favorable one, AFROTC's decision to disenroll him and to give him a "5" rating are both legally sufficient and appropriately applied. The applicant’s records show that he was unable to adapt to military standards. During the course of the disenrollment investigation his infractions were documented through eight AFROTC Forms 16, Officer Candidate Counseling Record, as well as a Letter of Reprimand (LOR). As a result of his failure to adapt, AFROTC determined that he was not fit for active military duty in the Air Force. Also, he performed significantly below average while in the AFROTC program. At the time of his disenrollment, he had a 2.95 cumulative grade point average (28th percentile) and a Field Training ranking of 18/22 (18th percentile), which placed him well below average and therefore not qualified for a "1" or "2" rating on the DD Form 785. Finally, after four years in the AFROTC program, he still had problems with following the rules. This directly impacted his being given the "5" rating on the DD Form 785. It should be noted that this rating is a recommendation, which is not binding on the other branches of service should he chooses to pursue a commission elsewhere. The complete JA evaluation is at Exhibit B. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 24 Sep 12 for review and response. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit C). ________________________________________________________________ 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, including his inquiry from his member of Congress, in judging the merits of the case. However, the Holm Center/JA has adequately addressed the issues presented by the applicant and we are in agreement with its opinion and recommendation. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis upon which to recommend granting the relief sought. 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 issue(s) 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-03488 in Executive Session on 21 May 13, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 2 Aug 12, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Letter, Holm Center/JA, dated 17 Sep 12. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 Sep 12.