RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-03377
		INDEX CODE:  
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  She be reinstated to the grade of master sergeant with her original effective date.

2.  She be reimbursed for all lost pay and allowances.

3.  Any record of derogatory data be removed from her personnel records and Enlisted Performance Report (EPR). 

4.  She be awarded the Meritorious Service Medal (MSM) for her permanent change-of-station move.

5.  She be supplementally considered for promotion to the grade of senior master sergeant for the 03E8 and 04E8 promotion cycles.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She did not commit any wrongdoing and adamantly denies the allegations.  Despite her 17-year history of excellence and proven integrity she was presumed guilty from the onset by her command.  She has submitted a preponderance of evidence supporting her innocence.  Despite a seven month investigation, no competent evidence has ever been produced to substantiate the hearsay allegations.  She was denied due process and access to exculpatory evidence, which was lost during the investigative process.  The inconclusive handwriting analysis used against her was improperly influenced and did not eliminate her trainer from being responsible for her own signature or conclude she forged anything.  Her offers to submit to a polygraph test were refused.

In January 2000, she was selected as the Airman Leadership School (ALS) Flight Chief at Whiteman AFB MO.  In May 2001, after the arrival of the new XXXX SPTG/CC, numerous violations of the AF College of Enlisted Professional Military Education (CEPME) ALS policy and curriculum were directed by her chain of command.  She expressed concern over the violations but was directed to adhere to the actions.  The numerous incidents negatively impacted her ability to operate the ALS accordingly.  She shared her concerns with the EPME Functional Manager at ACC and the Director of Education.  On numerous occasions members in her chain of command went to the Functional Manager and members of her faculty questioning her decisions in the performance of her duties.  They were consistently informed that she was correct in her interpretation and explanation of the curriculum and operational requirements.  However, her chain of command continued to direct and support policy violations undermining her authority and not supporting her in the performance of her duties.  She became known as the "curriculum nazi" and in their opinion "not a team player."  

Between September 2000 and March 2002 there were numerous incidents surrounding an inappropriate relationship between two ALS faculty members, TSgt   and TSgt   , which resulted in their poor duty performance, and insubordinate behavior.  Because these individuals were aware she did not receive appropriate support from her chain of command, they were confident the same lack of support would apply to personnel issues and her attempts to take appropriate corrective actions.  In February 2002, she was told by the MSS/CC to upgrade an Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) and decoration submission on TSgt   or it would impact her upcoming EPR.  

She contacted the wing Inspector General (IG) to schedule an appointment with him.  She advised her chain of command of the appointment and was told by her commander that she needed to be careful and was asked if she wanted to resign from her position.  She told him that she did not wish to resign.  She expressed her concerns to the IG who advised her that in spite of her excellence in performance of her responsibilities her commitment and strict enforcement of the curriculum, she was, in his opinion caught up in a "political quagmire."  He recommended she consider the possibility of further adverse actions and suggested she wait out the upcoming change of command and see if things improve.  Based on his recommendations, she decided not to file a formal complaint.  In June 2002, she filed a complaint with the 8AF/IG.  

On 25 Jun 02, she was told to report to the Security Forces Investigation section.  There she was informed she was under investigation for making false official statements and forgery.  She became uncomfortable with the questioning and requested legal counsel.  She and her legal counsel went to the commander’s office and requested access to the ALS to make copies of documentation, which would be needed in her defense, but her request was denied.  These documents, which would have been exculpatory were in fact later lost, damaged or destroyed while in the security forces possession.  Over the next seven months an inconclusive investigation took place, which failed to produce any legal or competent evidence of wrongdoing on her part or to substantiate any motive for her to have committed the allegations.  She received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR), Unfavorable Information File (UIF), and was placed on the Control Roster (CR).  Upon her rebuttal to the actions taken against her, her commander took matters even further by administratively demoting her and submitting a referral EPR.  Use of the administrative actions denied her due process under the law and her right to legal appeal outside her chain of command.  

She is convinced the two individuals, who were involved in an inappropriate relationship, were duped into their involvement in the allegations.  There is a great deal of evidence, which would show their integrity is questionable.  

Within EPME there are multiple layers of documented reporting requirements and training status reviews/self assessments, which the entire ALS faculty and commander are required to take part in on a quarterly, semi-annual, and annual basis.  All were conducted accordingly throughout 2000, 2001, and 2002 and at no time was it ever concluded she did not certify properly.  

It is her belief that the newly appointed commander and group commander were directly involved in her case and "called the shots" on all adverse actions taken against her providing unlawful command influence.  Because her new commander did not have the authority to demote her, the demotion authority approved the action she believes was reprisal for the IG complaint.  

In support of her request, applicant provided documentation associated with the investigation into the allegations against her, documentation associated with her administrative demotion action, and documentation associated with her referral EPR.  Her complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. 

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted her initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 28 Jan 86.  She was progressively promoted to the grade of master sergeant having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 1 Apr 99.  

On 17 Dec 02, applicant received an LOR for providing false documents as proof that she was qualified and certified to instruct and lead the ALS.  The applicant provided a rebuttal to the LOR.  A UIF and CR were established as a result of the LOR.  The CR expired on 24 Jun 03 and the UIF expired on 23 Dec 03.

On 31 Dec 03, the applicant was notified by her commander of her intent to recommend administrative demotion for providing false proof that she was fully qualified and certified to instruct and lead the ALS.  She was advised of her rights in this matter and acknowledged receipt of the notification on that same date.  After consulting counsel, the applicant provided a written and oral presentation and requested a personal hearing before the demotion authority.  In a review of the case file, the staff judge advocate found the case legally sufficient and recommended administrative demotion.  On 21 Jan 03, after consideration of all the facts and the applicant's rebuttal, the demotion authority directed that she be demoted to the grade of technical sergeant.

The following is a resume to the applicant's recent EPR profile:

	PERIOD ENDING	PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION

		01 Mar 04		5
		01 Mar 03		3 - Contested Report
		01 Mar 02		5
		01 Mar 01		5
		01 Mar 00		5
		01 Mar 99		5
		01 Mar 98		5
		01 Mar 97		5

The Office of the Inspector General found the preponderance of the actions taken against the applicant were based solely on evidence against her and there was not a need for an investigation into the allegations of reprisal under 10 USC 1034.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSFOC recommends denial.  DPSFOC states the use of the LOR by commanders and supervisors is an exercise of supervisory authority and responsibility.  The LOR is used to reprove, correct, and instruct subordinates who depart from acceptable norms of conduct or behavior.  An individual has three duty days upon receipt to submit rebuttal documents for consideration by the initiator.  The use of the UIF and CR by the commander is an exercise of command responsibility and authority.  The CR is considered a rehabilitative tool for commanders to set up a 6-month observation period for individuals whose duty performance is substandard or who fail to meet or maintain Air Force standards of conduct, bearing, and integrity.  Since her commander specifically cited her lack of integrity as one of the reasons for the LOR, it was within the commander’s authority to establish the UIF and place her on the CR.  The DPSFOC evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPR recommends disapproval of her request for award of an MSM.  DPPPR states in accordance with AFI 36-2803, no individual is automatically entitled to an award upon departure from an assignment.  Furthermore, a decoration is not to be awarded to an individual whose entire service for the period covered is not honorable.  It is entirely a commander’s decision whether or not to submit a recommendation for a decoration at the end of a tour.  At this point in time, she is not eligible for any award or decoration for her tour of duty at Whiteman AFB.  The DPPPR evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPPPE recommends denial.  DPPPE states she claims the original EPR provided to her for rebuttal comments is different from the actual report on file.  She states the original report contained markings in Section III Block 4 as "Exemplifies the standard of conduct" and Block 6 contained "Does not comply with minimum training requirements."  However, after receiving a copy of the report actually filed in the record, it shows the markings in Block 4 as "Unacceptable" and Block 6 "Complies with most training requirements."  She believes she was not provided the opportunity to rebut the new ratings. 

DPPPE requested a copy of the 1 Mar 03 EPR from her record to validate the markings on the front.  The front of the report is exactly the same as the report originally provided to the applicant upon notification of her referral report.  Block 4 is marked "Exemplifies the standard of conduct" and Block 6 is marked "Does not comply with minimum training requirements."  Also, the referral memorandum from the rater states "Specifically, my rating in section III, block 6 of unacceptable and my comments..." providing her the reason why the report is a referral.  

She also believes she received the referral report as reprisal to reflect negatively on her career.  She believes the IG complaint may have caused the reprisal actions, as well, could lead to further retribution.  However, without the final report of investigation from the IG, it cannot be determined if reprisal actions were taken against her.  If she believes she was reprised against, there are some avenues she may pursue.  The DPPPE evaluation is at Exhibit E.

AFPC/DPPPWB recommends denial.  DPPPWB states based on her original date of rank to E-7 of 1 Apr 99, she was eligible for promotion consideration to E-8 during cycle 03E8.  However, she was rendered ineligible when she was placed on the CR.  Subsequent ineligibility factors included her demotion to the grade of E-6 and receipt of a referral EPR.  Should the Board find in favor of the applicant and grant her requests, she would be eligible for supplemental promotion consideration to E-8 beginning with cycle 03E8.  The DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit F.

AFPC/JA recommends denial.  JA states the crux of the case relates to 57 ALS Instructor Evaluation Instruments, which applicant admittedly signed as the instructor being evaluated and which were purportedly prepared and signed by one of the E-6 ALS faculty members, TSgt  .  TSgt   denies she conducted any of the evaluations or signed any of the forms.  The evaluation forms show dates from 22 September 2000 through 5 October 2001 and were included in applicant's faculty training folder.  Forty-four of the 57 forms cover specific blocks of instruction, which took place from September through October 2000.  That class involved 26 students who were broken into two groups for most of the classes, one group mostly taught by TSgt   and the other mostly taught by TSgt  .  Fourteen of the students were contacted and have made statements, which are included in the application.  The statements read together reflect that TSgt   and TSgt   taught virtually all of the classes, that TSgt   taught one or two and that applicant conducted briefings at the beginning of the course (with other involvements for physical wellness training, reveille and like functions) but did not teach classroom courses to any significant degree during September-October 2000.  By contrast, the 44 disputed evaluation forms state that applicant taught 44 separate substantive blocks of instruction during this two-month period, ranging from 45 minute blocks to several hours, and covering 44 different subjects across a wide range of ALS topics.  The faculty folders for all the ALS instructors were available in a common area and TSgt   saw, for the first time according to his statement, applicant's folder, including the 57 evaluation forms.  TSgt   was surprised to see the number of evaluations, because it was inconsistent in his view with the number of courses, which he believed applicant had actually taught.  TSgt  , who purportedly had conducted the evaluations and signed the forms, had in March 2002 been reassigned.  TSgt   emailed TSgt   to ask if she had evaluated applicant as reflected by the forms.  TSgt   stated she had, in fact, never conducted a classroom evaluation of applicant and asked that copies of the forms be sent to her, which led to TSgt  's statement denying having signed the 57 forms and the investigation into falsification of the records.  The other two ALS instructors covering the relevant time frame, TSgt   and TSgt  , both signed statements saying applicant had not taught the number of classes reflected by her training folder records.  The investigation further uncovered a single form, an EPME Student Teaching Course Completion Checklist dated 12 April 2000, which covered required training of applicant, was signed by applicant and which was also purportedly signed by SMSgt  , the outgoing ALS flight chief.  SMSgt  , upon review of the form, signed a sworn statement denying he signed the form.  Besides denial of his signature, SMSgt   pointed out the form's completion information was filled out by the applicant, whereas it was his practice to write the checklist completion himself.  He also pointed out the 12 April 2000 date was premature for applicant's completion of the ALS teaching/observation requirements.

Several of the disputed evaluation forms and the single EPME checklist form were sent to the Army Criminal Investigation Laboratory for a forensic exam of the signatures and handwritten comments on the forms.  The 5 December 2002 report from the lab concludes that she did sign the forms where her signatures are shown.  The report then makes findings of lesser certainty ("there are indications that...") that applicant may have signed TSgt  's signatures and that TSgt   may not have signed her signatures.  The report also states the signature of SMSgt   bears features frequently associated with simulated/traced signatures, and that TSgt  's signatures bear features frequently associated with simulated signatures.

During the investigation, applicant's commander authorized the seizure of her government computer.  The computer contained voluminous emails according to the security forces that first sought to download the data, but crashed in the process of downloading.  The computer was eventually sent to a DOD forensic lab to seek to retrieve the data, but it was determined to be incapable of retrieval.  

Applicant has the burden to prove that a material error or injustice has occurred warranting a correction of her records.  JA does not believe this burden has been met.  Applicant does not allege that applicable Air Force directives were violated in carrying out the adverse administrative actions taken against her, but rather reiterates in multiple ways her assertion that because she is innocent the results of the administrative actions are unjust.  The common thread in each of these reviews is that where a commander's adverse administrative action is taken based upon appropriate grounds, it is not an error or injustice that the action has a negative impact on the member.  Her claim that the actions were taken as a reprisal for communicating with the IG has been reviewed by appropriate officials within the command.  The IG analysis concluded the preponderance of evidence supported the conclusion the adverse administrative actions taken against her were based solely on the evidence supporting the action and not because protected disc1osures had been made to the IG.  

The commanders' decisions in taking the administrative action against applicant were supported by the fol1owing evidence:

All three of applicant's fellow faculty members were consistent in stating under oath that she did not teach often and certainly not nearly as often as her faculty folder records reported.

TSgt  's sworn statement that she never evaluated applicant and that she did not sign or write comments on any of the 57 forms in applicant's file.  This evidence is further supported by the forms themselves and TSgt  's normal practice in completing like forms on the other faculty.  Whereas all 57 of applicant's forms have the names of the instructor and TSgt   as the evaluator typed in, TSgt   consistently handwrote these sections in the forms she used in evaluating instructors at ALS as shown by these forms in the application.  Although the forensic handwriting analysis does not purport to conclusively establish who wrote TSgt  's signature and comments on the disputed forms, it does state that there are indications that applicant may have written TSgt  's signatures and indications that TSgt   may not have written her signatures

SMSgt  , who applicant makes no al1egations of bias against, states in his sworn statement that he also did not sign a training record completed by applicant regarding her student teaching checklist.

The statements of the 14 students are, in JA's opinion, the most persuasive evidence of all in establishing that the 44 disputed forms are falsified.  First, applicant admits she signed her signature on all of these forms and maintained throughout all the adverse actions (and in this application) that she actually taught the classes reflected during that course.  The forensic handwriting exam supports she signed these forms (finding of "highly probable"). 

The forms for these 44 course blocks claim she taught the students for over 100 hours of instruction in September and October 2000.  Several forms represent claims by applicant that she taught the students for two and even three straight substantive blocks of instruction running four and five hours total for the day. With this background, there is no reasonable way to reconcile the statements of the 14 students.  While those statements may vary in small ways as to details, they are uniform in their sworn assertions that applicant did not come close to teaching the extent of classes that she claims.  These are 14 students, giving statements at different times and places in the summer and fall of 2002, who have no reason to falsify their statements.

JA believes there is ample evidence to support the commanders' decisions taking adverse administrative action against the applicant.  The evidence supporting the commanders' decisions concerning applicant was sufficiently supported with or without the forensic exam.  Applicant admitted she signed the disputed forms as to her own signature, and the key evidence discussed above came from other supporting evidence unrelated to the forensic exam.  

Applicant states that if she had the data from the computer hard drive, she would be able to show emails giving evidence that she was not being supported by her chain of command in her role as Flight Chief.  Given the specific evidence against her, these emails would not have been necessary to the resolution of the primary issue, falsification of records.  While their loss is unfortunate, and all reasonable efforts were made to retrieve the data without success, it did not amount to a material error or injustice under the facts of this case.

There is no regulatory right or authority by which a military member may compel resolution of administrative actions by use of polygraph exams (and none in the instructions governing the adverse actions involved in this case).  While the applicant states that she is willing to take an OSI polygraph exam, the legal review at Whiteman stated, that during the timeframe, the adverse actions were actually being processed, there was discussion of an OSI polygraph which neither applicant nor her counsel followed up on.  In any case, the use or non-use of polygraph exams is wholly within the discretion of the OSI in a given case and does not constitute error or injustice on the facts of this case.  Applicant was given the opportunity to respond, in accordance with the governing instruction for each administrative action, and in fact has done so at each step in the process.  The application documents also show she had the assistance of the Whiteman Area Defense Counsel, even at the Letter of Reprimand stage.  While there was data lost in the computer hard drive crash, there is no evidence this caused injustice to the applicant regarding the relevant evidence involved.

The JA evaluation is at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states the JA evaluator incorrectly states the significance of the computer data lost in the security forces' possession.  This information would have served to exonerate her and prove reprisal.  It included numerous email messages documenting conversations crucial to her case.  JA never reviewed this information since it was destroyed and cannot rightfully comment of its significance.  She has met with resistance throughout this entire ordeal in her attempts to obtain information favorable to her position.  What information she is able to gather is obtained through personnel outside of Whiteman AFB or through the Freedom of Information Act.  JA substantiates exemplary service throughout her career.  It is highly unlikely and unreasonable for anyone to conclude that with absolutely no thing to gain, she suddenly departed from her proved character and put her entire career at risk to forge/falsify documents for a skill she possessed and had already completed certification for.  Applicant clarifies chronological errors by JA and states that in her response to the LOR she points out she completed her STC requirements four years before being assigned to ALS.  Guidelines for instructors with previously completed STC states the signature of the school flight chief is not required as originally filed within her training folder.  Had completion of this block been required, she would have signed it accordingly in her own name.  In her opinion, the traced signature was obviously from someone who was attempting through deception to add credibility to the allegations.  Unfortunately, in spite of open access to her training folder and inconsistencies in the allegations, no one else was ever looked at as a suspect.  The handwriting analysis made no conclusions in regards to this signature.  None of the advisories address or make comment in regards to her allegations of directive violations.  

The three certified EPME instructors were aware that lesson qualification was required to be completed within 12 months of assignment.  Had she not completed the requirement as they allege, why it is that none of them ever made mention of it until 15 months after she was required to be qualified and 20 months after she had reported them as complete.  The student statements mentioned by JA were neither attesting to the authenticity of her instructor evaluation forms nor whether she completed lesson qualification requirements.  They were simply providing their recollection of a course they attended two years prior.  The student's recollection of her time in classroom is consistent with the amount of time she taught and in fact they specifically referenced some of the lessons she instructed.  The students are not EPME instructions and are not familiar with the ALS curriculum in regards to what are actually considered lessons in accordance with the course index.  While there may be no regulatory right or authority by which a military member may compel resolution of administrative actions by use of a polygraph, the JA has authorized resolution in other cases.  The fact they would not do so in this case further supports that truth and justice were not the focus of this matter.  Due process is best defined as fairness.  It includes such constitutional requirements as adequate notice, assistance of counsel, to confront and secure witnesses, and an impartial jury.  When a person is denied these requirements and treated unfairly they are said to have been denied due process.  This is exactly what occurred throughout the investigation into the allegations against her.  She was not afforded adequate time to consult counsel, she nor her counsel were able to question witnesses or accusers, requests for access to evidence were refused, exculpatory evidence was lost/destroyed while in the possession of security forces personnel, and all requests for delay were denied.  There is no regulatory requirement governing administrative actions to protect these rights, which is her position why her commanders used the administrative actions to punish her where insufficient evidence did not exist to prove she committed a violation of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice.  

Within her application and her counsel's response to the demotion action, it is stated they do not believe that AFI 36-2503 was properly adhered to.  None of the advisories address whether or not the demotion was warranted and/or correctly imposed.  While the group commander had the authority to do so based on his rank, it does not mean the action was warranted.  

The DPPPE advisory does not address the violations she makes reference to in her application.  Attached to her 27 Mar 03 letter to the ACC/IG was the EPR she obtained from the Military Personnel Flight.  This EPR clearly substantiates the report had been changed from how it was originally referred to her on 10 Mar 03.  Only upon bringing this matter to the attention of her counsel, the IG, and Major  , were the changes made, returning the EPR to the original referred format.

DPPPR simply cites the Air Force Instruction.  She is requesting the MSM based on documented meritorious service and outstanding achievement throughout the time she was assigned to Whiteman AFB.  This information is documented in her EPRs and a statement of performance included in her application.  It is her opinion that her service for the entire period she was assigned was honorable.  

DPSFOC does not address or comment on any evidence submitted within her application.  The advisory simply explains the authority to issue LORs, UIFs, and CRs.  Just because the commander had the authority based on position and terminology within LOR conformed to the AFI and it does not mean the actions themselves are warranted.  Authority does not take precedence over truth and justice.  

Her complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit I.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

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

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  The Board took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, the Board majority does not find her assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the evidence of record or the rationale provided by the Air Force.  In regard to her request pertaining to the EPR and demotion action, the Board majority finds no evidence that would lead them to believe she was reprised against and, it is the Board majority's opinion that her contentions of reprisal are unsubstantiated.  The Board majority is not persuaded by her assertions that the contested EPR is not an honest and accurate assessment of her performance and demonstrated potential during the period in question; or that the overall rating and comments contained therein were based on inappropriate considerations or that her raters abused their discretionary authority.  With respect to the administrative demotion action, again the majority of the Board is not persuaded by the evidence presented that the commander's decision to recommend administrative demotion was improper.  

4.  The Board also considered her request that she be awarded the MSM and after finding no evidence that she was recommended for award of a PCS medal agrees with the Air Force that award of a decoration for the period in question is not warranted.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Board majority finds no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.  

5.  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.

_________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:

A majority of the panel finds insufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommends the application be denied.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2003-03377 in Executive Session on 17 Aug 04, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

By a majority vote, the Board voted to deny the request.  Ms.    voted to partially correct the record and submitted a minority report.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated, 26 Sep 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSFOC, dated 23 Jan 04.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 11 Feb 04.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 1 Mar 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 16 Mar 04.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 25 May 04.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 May 04.
    Exhibit I.  Letter, Applicant, dated 21 Jun 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit J.  IG Report of Investigation, dated 2 Jun 03-WITHDRAWN.
    Exhibit K.  Minority Report, dated 25 Aug 04.

								

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

SUBJECT:  Minority Report in the AFBCMR Application of, 

	The applicant requests that she be reinstated to the grade of master sergeant, she be reimbursed for all lost pay and allowances, any record of derogatory data be removed from her personnel records including the Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) closing 1 Mar 03, she be awarded the Meritorious Service Medal (MSM), and she be supplementally considered for promotion to the grade of senior master sergeant.  The majority of the panel members recommend denial of her request in its entirety.  I have carefully considered all the circumstances of this case and while I agree with the other panel members that award of the MSM is not warranted, I do not fully agree with their determination regarding the applicant's remaining requests.

	The applicant received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR), an Unfavorable Information File, a referral EPR, was placed on the Control Roster, and was administratively demoted to the grade of technical sergeant as result of allegations of falsifying training documents while assigned as an Airman Leadership School (ALS) Superintendent.  She believes that the actions were taken against her because of her discussion with the Inspector General (IG) of adverse conditions and a hostile environment created by her chain-of-command.  She contends that evidence which would have proven her contentions and exonerated her of any wrongdoings were contained on her computer hard drive, which was lost while in the possession of investigating officials.  She contends that the evidence against her consisted of an inconclusive handwriting analysis, she was denied due process, and that the administrative actions taken against her were reprisal in nature. 

	It is my opinion that the decision to administratively demote the applicant and provide her a referral EPR in addition to the LOR, establishment of a UIF and placement on the CR was excessively harsh based on the preponderance of the evidence at hand.  Taking in to consideration the facts that the allegations against her were initiated by two individuals whom she attempted to take action against because of what she believed was an improper relationship; the actions taken were based, in part, on an inconclusive handwriting analysis; and she was denied access to potentially exculpatory evidence, which was destroyed while in the possession of investigating officials, I believe that some corrective action is warranted.  The instruction governing administrative demotion actions specifically states "When appropriate, give the airman an opportunity to overcome their deficiencies before demotion action is initiated."  Taking into account the applicant's record of exemplary performance prior to and subsequent to the period in question, it certainly appears that providing her an opportunity to overcome the alleged deficiency was warranted.  However, I see no evidence that such an opportunity was provided.  Accordingly, it is my opinion that the applicant has established reasonable doubt as to whether the decision to administer her a referral EPR and administratively demote her were based on factors other than the evidence against her and I believe that any reasonable doubt should be resolved in her favor. 

							

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD
               FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)

SUBJECT:  AFBCMR Application 

	I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the recommendation of the Board members.  A majority found that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommended the case be denied.  I concur with that finding and their conclusion that relief is not warranted.  Accordingly, I accept their recommendation that the application be denied.

	Please advise the applicant accordingly.