RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-00939

	COUNSEL: YES

	HEARING: YES

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His United States Air Force Academy (USAFA) debt be remitted.  

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was disenrolled from the USAFA and subsequently incurred a $143,700.00 tuition debt.  He was denied acceptance to serve as an enlisted member and his request for remission based on hardship was also denied. The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is a former Air Force second lieutenant.  

On an unknown date, the applicant signed USAFA Form O-205, Record of Acceptance, Obligation, Reimbursement and Oath of Allegiance, that states if he failed to complete the specific educational requirements, at the option of the Secretary of the Air Force, he would either serve enlisted on active duty, or reimburse the United States for the entire cost of education in the manner provided by statute.

On 23 Jun 14, the applicant was involuntarily disenrolled from the USAFA for violating the Cadet Wing Honor Code with two allegations of lying and one allegation of cheating. 

On 12 Sep 14, the Secretary of the Air Force determined the applicant was required to reimburse the United States Government for the cost of attendance at the USAFA and on the same date, the applicant was honorably discharged from the Air Force and was credited with 3 years, 2 months and 19 days of active service.

On 3 Mar 15, the applicant submitted his request to the BCMR and on 12 May 15, the BCMR notified the applicant that he failed to exhaust all remedies by first submitting his request to the Remissions Board.

On 9 Jun 15, the applicant, through counsel, requested to administratively close his case to obtain a review and decision from the Remissions Board.

On 10 May 16, the Remissions Board disapproved the applicant’s request and determined a remission was not in the best interest of the United States and stated the collection of the debt was not unjust or inequitable as the applicant incurred the debt because he failed to live up to the terms of his USAFA scholarship and that the remission of debt was not warranted on the basis of hardship.

On 9 Dec 16, the Remissions Board disapproved the applicant’s appeal for reconsideration and determined a remission was not in the best interest of the United States and stated that although his current status as a student prevents him from being able to make payments toward his debt, the quality of the education he received provides him the earning potential to eventually fulfill his obligation to reimburse the United States for the cost of his education.  

On 10 Jul 17, the applicant requested that his BCMR case be re-opened on the basis he had exhausted all administrative options.

For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B and the advisory at Exhibit F.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

SAF/MRBR recommends denying the application. Collection of the debt is not unjust or inequitable as the applicant incurred the debt because he failed to live up to the terms of the USAFA scholarship per AFI 36-3034, Remission of Indebtedness, paragraphs 3.3 and 3.4. The applicant also raised financial hardship as a basis to remit the debt, but also indicated at the time a monthly disposable income of $616.60. Therefore, it was also determined remission of the debt was not warranted on the basis of hardship, per AFI 36-3034, paragraph 3.5. The complete advisory is at Exhibit F.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Board sent a copy of the Air Force evaluation to the applicant on 14 May 18 for comment (Exhibit G), but has received no response.

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The application was timely filed.

2.  The applicant exhausted all available avenues of non-judicial relief before applying to the Board.

3.   After thoroughly reviewing all Exhibits, it is the Board’s opinion that the applicant is not the victim of an injustice.  The Board concurs with the rationale and recommendation of SAF/MRBB and finds that a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  Therefore, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.

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 RECOMMENDS THAT:

The applicant be informed the evidence did not demonstrate material error or injustice, and the application will only be reconsidered upon receipt of relevant evidence not already considered by the Board.

The application was adjudicated without a personal appearance.

CERTIFICATION:

The following quorum of the Board, as defined in Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR), paragraph 1.5, considered Docket Number BC-2015-00939 in Executive Session on 15 Aug 18:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

All members voted not to correct the record.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, dated 3 Mar 15 w/atchs.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Notification of Failure to Exhaust, AFBCMR, dated 12 May 15.
Exhibit D:	Applicant’s response, dated 9 Jun 15.
Exhibit E:	Applicant’s response, dated 10 Jul 17.
Exhibit F:	Advisory opinion, SAF/MRBB, dated 10 May 18.
Exhibit G:	Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 14 May 18.

Taken together with all Exhibits, this document constitutes the true and complete Record of Proceedings required by AFI 36-2603, paragraph 4.11.9.