RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2014-00607

		COUNSEL:  NONE INDICATED

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His DD Form 785, Record of Disenrollment from Officer Candidate – Type Training, dated 27 September 2006, be corrected to reflect a rating of “1” – Highly Recommended or “2” – Recommended as an Average Candidate instead of “3” - Should Not Be Considered Without Weighing The ‘Needs of the Service’ Against The Reasons For This Disenrollment.  


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He did not realize until June 2013 that a DD Form 785 was completed seven years ago.  However, it does not accurately reflect who he is today, nor does it take into account his service as a non-commissioned officer.  He would like the rating changed to allow him the opportunity to be commissioned as an Air Force Medical Service Corps Officer.  

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving in the Air National Guard (ANG) in the grade of staff sergeant (E-5).  

On 1 September 2005, a DD Form 785 was initiated for the applicant to be disenrolled from the Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps (AFROTC) program under the provisions of Air Force Instruction 36-2011, Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps and Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps Instruction (AFROTCI) 36-2015, AFROTC Contract Cadet Disenrollment, for breach/anticipatory breach of the AFROTC contract, effective 27 September 2005.  

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C.  


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFROTC/CC recommends denial.  While the applicant contends a correction to his DD Form 785 is required for commissioning, to the contrary, it does not render him ineligible to return to service in the Air Force as an officer.  After thoroughly reviewing the applicant’s case, AFROTC stands by its determination that the DD Form 785 was an accurate assessment of his performance at the time of his disenrollment and should not be changed.  On 27 September 2006, the applicant was disenrolled from the AFROTC program for breach/anticipatory breach of the AFROTC contract when he self-eliminated from Field Training.  At the time of disenrollment, the applicant did not meet military standards and was removed from the program.  The DD Form 785 specifies reasons and circumstances for the applicant’s disenrollment which corresponds with his evaluation to be considered in the future for determining acceptability for other officer training.    The applicant received a “3” rating which is appropriate for individuals whose aptitude, personal behavior, or motivation has rendered their potential for future commissioning questionable.  This rating is usually given to United States Air Force Academy (USAFA) cadets who resign in-lieu-of action under or conviction for a breach of the honor code and AFROTC AS 200 and above contract cadets disenrolled for breach or anticipatory breach of contract.  A “3” rating is merely a recommendation for future acceptance into other officer training programs.  The United States Army, United States Navy, and other officer training programs make their own determination for program entry and should consider enlisted performance when making a determination to allow entry into a commissioning program.  

A complete copy of the AFROTC/CC 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 22 September 2014 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D).


THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

2.  The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

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 in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of 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-2014-00607 in Executive Session on 6 January 2015, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 July 2013, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFROTC/CC, dated 17 March 2014.
Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 September 2014.







3