RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2017-05352

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

	HEARING: YES

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  The Secretary of the Air Force’s decision to require reimbursement of expenses for his United States Air Force Academy (USAFA) education be reversed.

2.  DD Form 785, Record of Disenrollment from Officer Candidate – Type Training, Section III (Reasons and Circumstances for Disenrollment) exclude the words “to include one without the female occupant’s permission.” (Administratively corrected-No Board action required)

3.  DD Form 785, Section IV (Evaluation to be Considered in the Future for Determining Acceptability for Other Officer Training) be changed from “5” to “3.”

4.  The separation code on his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be changed to allow future enlistment or commissioning.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

1.  The applicant was never advised that he was being processed for disenrollment because of alleged sexual impropriety.  The applicant’s Air Officer Commanding (AOC) publicly called him a sexual predator and caused two separate Air Force Office of Special Investigations (OSI) inquiries simply based on the applicant’s romantic involvement with female cadets in the dormitory.  The applicant was misled into believing he was defending himself against “minor misconduct” consisting of underage drinking, intoxication, and consensual intimate activities in the cadet area.  Neither the AFCW Forms 10, Report of Conduct, the Letter of Reprimand, nor the Notification Memorandum hint at the non-consensual sex allegation.  Instead, it appears for the first time on the DD Form 785 among the reasons for the Superintendent’s disenrollment decision.

2.  There was never a finding, administrative or otherwise, that he committed any act of sexual impropriety.

3.  Disenrollment for the offenses alleged on the AFCW Forms 10 and Letter of Reprimand was grossly disproportionate and failed to recognize that those offenses were a year or more old and his behavior subsequently was without blemish.  In support of his request, the applicant provides a memorandum from the Commander, Air Education and Training Command, and other documents related to his request.  The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

According to Special Order AH-28 dated 23 June 2011, the applicant was admitted as a cadet of the USAFA class of 2015, effective 23 June 2011.

On 5 August 2014, the Group AOC notified the applicant of his intent to recommend that he be disenrolled from the USAFA under AFI 36-3504, Disenrollment of United States Air Force Academy Cadets, for a deficiency in conduct, minor misconduct, and/or failing conduct probation, as evidenced by one Letter of Reprimand and five AFCW Forms 10 issued between 2012 and 2014.  The commander recommended the applicant’s service be characterized as under honorable conditions (general).

On 10 October 2014, the Commandant of Cadets concurred with the Group AOC’s recommendation to disenroll the applicant from the USAFA and recommended his service be characterized as honorable, but that he be assigned a DD Form 785 rating of 5 (Definitely not recommended) for future commission.

On 22 October 2014, the USAFA Superintendent directed that the applicant be disenrolled, assigned a DD Form 785 rating of 5 (Definitely not recommended) for future commission, and given an honorable service characterization.  The Superintendent also recommended that the Secretary of the Air Force order the applicant to reimburse the government for his USAFA education costs.

On 27 February 2015, the Secretary of the Air Force ordered the applicant to reimburse the United States for the cost of his education at the USAFA, but only for costs incurred after 1 June 2014.

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

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

USAFA/JA recommends denying the application.  The applicant does not deny receiving due process on all the underlying actions that formed the basis for his disenrollment.  He received a Letter of Reprimand, to which he had an opportunity to respond.  This letter covered multiple incidents of intimate behavior behind closed doors, multiple incidents of underage drinking, consuming alcohol in cadet dormitories, and making inappropriate and unwelcomed comments of a sexual nature.  Under current and past standards, this last form of misconduct could also constitute sexual harassment.  Therefore, it is incorrect for the applicant to claim, “[he] was never advised that [he] was actually being processed for disenrollment as a result of alleged sexual impropriety [and] there was never a finding, administrative or otherwise, that [he] committed any act of sexual impropriety.”  Moreover, this allegation was just one of the many other documented acts of misconduct by the applicant, which formed the basis for the discharge.

The applicant’s counsel discusses sexual assault allegations against the applicant, which were investigated by the Air Force OSI.  However, the OSI investigation was not the basis for his adverse administrative actions or the disenrollment process, nor did the Superintendent or the Secretary consider it when deciding the case.  The documents presented to the different authorities for disposition were the same documents presented to the applicant, and they did not include allegations of sexual assault or any mention of the applicant as a “sexual predator.”

The applicant provides a letter from the Commander, Air Education and Training, dated 8 December 2017, that describes the actions taken against the applicant as an overreaction.  The commander appears to allege the government must accept the applicant’s misconduct as a desirable risk-taking for warfighters.  However, he completely disregards basic concepts of good order and military discipline, the fact that the applicant admitted to the misconduct, and that the admitted misconduct independently merited the actions taken against the applicant.

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’s counsel on 13 September 2018 for comment (Exhibit D), 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 the applicant is not the victim of an error or injustice.  The Board concurs with the rationale and recommendation of USAFA/JA 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 has not shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel would materially add to the Board’s understanding of the issues involved.

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-2017-05352 in Executive Session on 4 October 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 8 December 2018.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Advisory opinion, USAFA/JA, dated 18 May 2018.
Exhibit D:	Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 17 September 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.