RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2016-04066

   						COUNSEL:   

HEARING DESIRED:  YES

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The DD Form 785, Record of Disenrollment from Officer Candidate-type Training, directing his disenrollment from Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps (AFROTC), be modified to:

a.  Change Section III, Reasons and Circumstances for Disenrollment, to remove references to “multiple alcohol-related incidents” and failure to maintain military retention standards, and only indicate his disenrollment.

b.  Change Section IV, Evaluation to be Considered in the Future for Determining Acceptability for Other Office Training, to read “Highly Recommended.” 

APPLICANT CONTENDS:

Through counsel, the applicant contends: he was a civilian, not an ROTC cadet, on 30 Oct 09, when he attended a party where AFROTC cadets allegedly consumed alcohol.  He did nothing wrong, did not possess or consume alcohol, and did not provide it to others.  Nonetheless, the Commandant of Cadets counseled him as “a lesson in the principles of leadership and high military standards” associated with his potential for becoming a cadet.  The event and subsequent documentation are not, and were never intended to be part of his military record, used for disciplinary purposes, or evidence of an “alcohol related incident.”  However, the Commandant’s unsigned counseling form was later used by HQ AFROTC as a reason to disenroll him, stating he was involved in an alcohol-related incident (ARI) even though his Commandant and DET Commander disagreed.

On 18 Dec 10, as a 20-year old ROTC cadet, he drank two beers in his private residence.  He did not provide alcohol to anyone or encourage anyone else to drink.   On the same date, he had consensual sex with a female acquaintance in his cadet-shared apartment.  During a sexual assault investigation unrelated to him, a different female cadet suggested he may have sexually assaulted his female acquaintance, so an investigation was accomplished.  His female acquaintance denied under oath the applicant had sexually assaulted her, confirming it was consensual.  His ROTC Det Commander, Colonel R, concluded the allegation of sexual assault was without merit and recommended the applicant be “returned to full cadet status without prejudice or delay.”  However, without further notice, HQ AFROTC Registrar directed the applicant be disenrolled for failure to maintain military standards “when he was involved in multiple alcohol-related incidents.” 

The decision to disenroll him from AFROTC is based on his being engaged in two alcohol-related incidents, but the factual finding is demonstrably wrong.  One cited ARI was not, in fact, an ARI.  The Air Force officers with knowledge of the events determined as much. 

The applicant does not seek to overturn his disenrollment, he merely seeks to have the factual finding that he engaged in multiple alcohol related incidents corrected.

In support of his request, the applicant provides an affidavit from the Commandant of Cadets at the time dated 13 May 13, stating she was advised the conduct described in the applicant’s AFROTC IMT 4 and Form 16 was considered as an ARI and used to support his disenrollment.  If so, it is a misuse of the counseling statement as well as a distortion of the conduct and nature of the counseling he received.  She affirms that the event and subsequent documentation are not, and were never intended to be evidence of an ARI. 

The applicant also provides a letter from his unit commander at the time.  He reviewed the affidavit above dated 3 May 13, regarding the circumstances and events described in the 13 Nov 90, AFROTC Form 16.  He concurred with the facts and assessment as described by the affidavit above. The counseling he gave the applicant on the 13 Nov 09 Form 16 was intended to remind him about the high standards expected of Air Force cadets and officers. He states it was never intended to be a part of the applicant’s military record or used for disciplinary purposes.  Furthermore, the counseling was not for an alcohol related incident, nor did he mention alcohol on the form.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 2 Jul 12, the HQ AFROTC Registrar, disenrolled the applicant from AFROTC, effective 25 Jul 12 due to the applicant having “failed to maintain military retention standards when he was involved in multiple alcohol related incidents,” and indicated the applicant “should not be considered without weighing the ‘needs of the service’ against the reason for disenrollment” in the future for determining acceptability for other officer training.  

Under Special Order A1-56, 8 Jun 17, the applicant was commissioned as a second lieutenant in the Puerto Rico Air National Guard (PRANG), effective 18 Nov 16, and is enrolled in Undergraduate Pilot Training (UPT) at Vance AFB, Enid, OK.   

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

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ/AFROTC recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice.  AFROTCI 36-2011, Cadet Operations, paragraph 7.4, states, “Headquarters AFROTC decisions are based on the whole-person concept,” and paragraph 4.40.1 states, “Failure to meet any military retention standard may result in dismissal or investigation for disenrollment.”  In accordance with this instruction, headquarters personnel conducted a fair, consistent, and impartial evaluation of the applicant and made the decision to disenroll him based on his failure to meet military retention standards by his involvement in the two ARIs detailed above.

Whether or not they did so knowingly or intentionally, the applicant’s AFROTC Detachment leadership created a record of an ARI following the 30 Oct 09 incident.  The applicant does not dispute his underage consumption of alcohol on 18 Dec 10.  

The decision regarding the DD Form 785, Section IV, Evaluation to be Considered in the Future for Determining Acceptability for Other Officer Training, rests with the signing authority, the AFROTC Registrar.  The applicant’s Field Training ranking 2 years earlier was about average, specifically 12 of 23, which might have qualified him for an “Average” rating.  The applicant’s college grade point average (GPA), however, was 2.74, which placed him academically in the bottom 4 percent of his commissioning class, thus pulling him well below average, justifying the “3” ranking on his DD Form 785, contradicting the allegation of an error or injustice.  In the end, it is a recommendation and other sources of commissioning use it a one factor among many in making their decisions.

Recommend denial of the applicant’s request.  The record in question is, in its current condition, a fair and accurate representation of applicant’s disenrollment from AFROTC.

A complete copy of the HQ/AFROTC evaluation is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In further support of his original request, the applicant submitted a rebuttal to the Air Force evaluation, taking exception to the recommendation to deny.  

1.  He appealed the HQ AFROTC decision to disenroll him on 8 Jul 13, but never received a response, despite AFROTC’s policy requiring a response within 60 days.  HQ AFROTC would not even reveal the factual basis for his disenrollment, despite repeated requests, until it received a Congressional Inquiry (CI). 

2.  The AFROTC IMT 4, used to document and counsel him after the 30 Oct 09 incident, was not even signed or sworn to by the Commandant.  Moreover, the AFROTC Form 16, Officer Candidate Counseling Record, specifically states the applicant did not drink or possess alcohol, nor control those who did, and that the counseling was for situational awareness, rather than an ARI.  The cadet entry form (Form 35) contains no mention of this alleged ARI.  This suggests these forms were not part of record prior to entry.  He was not given an opportunity to explain in writing before AFROTC took further action, as required by regulation.  HQ AFROTC first deemed the Oct 09 incident as an “ARI” long after the applicant’s hearing; thus, it created its multiple-ARI rationale after the fact.  

3.  The advisory states “whether or not they did so knowingly or intentionally, (the applicant’s DET leadership) created a record of an ARI…via AF Form 4 and AFROTC Form 16.”  They did no such thing.  The applicant’s leadership had directly contrary intent as they stated in their affidavits.  The IMT 4 was not signed.  AFRPTC 36-2011 states for a Form 4 to describe an ARI, it must include the amount consumed, the time period of consumption, and other itemized detail, all of which it lacks. 

4.  While the applicant admits he had two beers in his private home on Dec 10, AFROTC 36-2011 makes it clear, the worst possible outcome from his self-reported event in Dec 10 is a conditional event and a stern warning.  

5.  Since HQ AFROTC’s decision was based upon the whole person concept, it is vital all information shown is correct, complete and accurate.  It wasn’t.  As stated, his AF Form 35 did not contain the Oct 09 event, and thus did not afford him the chance required by AFROTC regulations, to explain. 

6.  Finally, he graduated from the University of Kentucky with a 3.388 GPA with a degree in Applied Physics, and completed his Masters Degree in Business Administration (MBA) with a GPA of 3.471.  

The Board should correct his record as requested.

A complete copy of the applicant’s rebuttal is at Exhibit E.

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

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

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an injustice to warrant relief.  We note HQ AFROTC recommends denial stating the record in question is, in its current condition, a fair and accurate representation of applicant’s disenrollment from AFROTC.  However, we believe a preponderance of the evidence substantiates corrective action is warranted.  Based on the two affidavits he provides, we believe the alleged incident which occurred on 30 Oct 09, does not fairly constitute an alcohol related incident.  Therefore, it is our opinion no reference to the incident should have been made on his DD Form 785.  We also note the applicant requests Section IV, of the DD Form 785 be changed to read “Highly Recommended.”  However, given the applicant was subsequently commissioned as a second lieutenant in the Puerto Rico Air National Guard (PRANG), effective 18 Nov 16, we believe the interest of justice can best be served by removing the DD Form 785, dated 2 July 12 from his record.  We believe this provides the applicant full and fitting relief.  Accordingly, we recommend the applicant’s records be corrected as indicated below. 

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 RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to the APPLICANT be corrected to show that DD Form 785, Record of Disenrollment from Officer Candidate – Type Training, dated 2 July 2012, be declared void and removed from his record.

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2016-04066 in Executive Session on 7 Mar 18 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

All members voted to correct the records as recommended.  The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2016-04066 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 4 Oct 16, w/atch(s).
	Exhibit B.  Master Personnel Records [Excerpts].
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, HQ/AFROTC, dated 2 Feb 17.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 6 Mar 17.
	Exhibit E.  Applicant’s Rebuttal, dated 14 Apr 17.

Pursuant to paragraph 1 of AFI 36-2603 (Title 32 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 865.1), it is certified a quorum was present at the Board's review and deliberations, and the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board's proceedings in AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2016-04066. 
`