RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-05209

XXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL: NONE

	HEARING: NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

She be reinstated to the United States Air Force Academy (Academy).

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was erroneously disenrolled from the Academy for academic deficiency because of her cumulative grade point average.  However, her grade point average was 2.21, which is higher than the required 2.0 grade point average.  The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

According to Special Order AH-4 dated 28 June 2012, the applicant was admitted as a cadet of the United States Air Force Academy, class of 2016 effective 28 June 2012.

According to DD Form 785, Record of Disenrollment from Officer Candidate – Type Training, dated 23 February 2015 the applicant was involuntarily disenrolled from the Air Force Academy due to academic deficiency.  At the time of her disenrollment, the applicant was on academic, aptitude and conduct probation.  Her cumulative grade point average was 2.21, cumulative military performance average was 2.39, and cumulative physical education average was 2.69.   She incurred a two-year Active Duty Service Commitment for her attendance at the Academy and would receive an honorable separation from cadet status and the United States Air Force Academy.

On 27 April 2015, the Secretary of the Air Force directed the applicant be ordered to active duty for completion of the Active Duty Service Commitment incurred by attendance at the United States Air Force Academy.

According to a memorandum provided by the applicant dated 6 April 2016, the Chief, Cadet Actions informed the applicant that following a review of her medical record and pending Medical Evaluation Board, the Air Force Personnel Center determined the applicant was medically disqualified for continued enlistment effective 28 March 2016.  As a result, her Active Duty Service Commitment was waived and she would not be required to reimburse the government for the cost of her education at the United States Air Force Academy.

On 6 April 2016, the applicant was honorably discharged as an Air Force Cadet and was credited with 3 years, 9 months and 9 days of inactive service.  Her separation code and corresponding narrative reason for separation is JFF (Secretarial Authority).  

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

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The United States Air Force Academy recommends denying the application.  While the applicant correctly reported her cumulative grade point average as a 2.21, above the minimum 2.0 required for graduation, her disenrollment occurred because she was deficient in academics due to multiple failed course grades, a deficient semester grade point average and her placement on conduct and aptitude probations. The applicant’s disenrollment for academic deficiency was properly processed and found legally sufficient by the Academy Judge Advocate General.  In March 2014, the applicant received a concussion and sustained several other serious injuries following a bicycle accident.  During her recovery, her Air Officer Commanding discussed the applicant’s option to volunteer for administrative turnback, which would have allowed her to depart the Academy to recover from her injuries without the stress of potentially falling behind in academics.  The applicant declined to volunteer for this program and subsequently did not complete prescribed follow-on concussion care she was prescribed in June 2014, after medical professionals determined her concussion was nearly resolved.  The applicant approached her doctors about the possibility of an administrative turnback following a recommendation to disenroll her from the Academy.

In February 2015, the applicant completed the previously prescribed follow-up appointments with the Warrior Recovery Center.  She was found to have a history consistent with mild Traumatic Brain Injury (concussion) but no structural damage.  Magnetic Resonance Imaging and neuropsychiatric testing revealed she had excellent performance on testing and cognitive rehabilitation was not recommended.  Following a required legal review, the Superintendent, in consultation with the Dean of the Faculty and the Commandant of Cadets, disenrolled the applicant with a recommendation to the Secretary of the Air Force to waive the Active Duty Service Commitment.  However, on 27 April 2015, the Secretary of the Air Force directed the applicant to serve two years of enlisted service to fulfill her Active Duty Service Commitment.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Board sent a copy of the Air Force evaluation to the applicant on 3 May 2016, for comment (Exhibit D), and the applicant replied on 31 May 2016.  In her response, the applicant contended that the office of primary responsibility states that her last visit to the concussion clinic was in June 2014, where it is noted that clinic wanted to follow up per their standard concussion care.  However, she was advised the test results used to track improvement of her cognitive functions would be skewed until she was no longer taking narcotic pain medication; therefore, she planned on resuming her appointments once she was no longer on medication.  She remained on narcotic mediation throughout the summer.  She did not comprehend the severity of her accident when she was initially told about turnback program.  Her Air Officer Commanding told her she could start the process at any time but she was determined to finish the last few weeks of the semester.  When she began to realize her confusion and academic struggle, she decided to contact a person who witnessed her bicycle accident and they provided a letter indicating she lost consciousness for three to five minutes.  This indicates a level of mild Traumatic Brain Injury [concussion].  When she mentioned this to her physician she was sent to the Warrior Recovery Center to receive the treatment she would have received had her loss of consciousness would have been discovered earlier.  The Secretary of the Navy recently released a policy indicating that service member’s facing involuntary separation will have their medical condition take precedence over the member's misconduct when being looked at for separation from service.  Since her bicycle accident, she has tried, with minimal support from her squadron and Air Officer Commanding to maintain the standards required of her.  However, she was being judged as a whole-person when she was not her true self.  In support of her response, the applicant provides copies letters from an accident witness and clinical neuropsychologist, a press release, and other documents associated with her request. The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Psychiatric Advisor recommends denying the application indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. The decision was made to disenroll the applicant from the Academy based in part on the neuropsychological testing that indicated that her Traumatic Brain Injury had resolved and she was now recovered from the constraints imposed by that condition; therefore, she was directed to serve in the Air Force in an enlisted status.  Subsequently, a complete review of her physical condition and impending Medical Evaluation Board determined she was no longer medically qualified for continued service.  Therefore, her debt to the Academy was waived and she was honorably discharged from the Air Force.   The applicant should contact the Department of Veterans Affairs to inquire about eligible services.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit F.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Board sent a copy of the Air Force evaluation to the applicant on 3 August 2018, 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 error or injustice.  The Board concurs with the rationale and recommendations of the United States Air Force Academy and the BCMR Psychiatric Advisor 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.

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.

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-2015-05209 in Executive Session on 27 September 2018:

, Panel Chair
, Panel Member
, Panel Member

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

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 7 December 2015.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Advisory opinion, United States Air Force Academy, dated 17 March 2016.
Exhibit D:	Notification of Advisory, AFBCMR, dated 3 May 2016.
Exhibit E:	Applicant’s response, w/atchs, dated 31 May 2016 and 7 July 2016.
Exhibit F:	Advisory opinion, BCMR Psychiatric Advisor, dated 8 November 2017.
Exhibit G:	Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC, dated 3 August 2018.

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