AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  97-00066 
COUNSEL:  None 
HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT: 
The nonjudicial punishments imposed on her under Article 15, UCMJ, 
on 20 February 1996  and 18 April  1996 be removed from her records, 
her general  (under honorable conditions) discharge be  upgraded  to 
honorable, her records be corrected to show she was discharged for 
the  "Convenience  of  the  Government"  with  the  award  of  the 
appropriate  separation  code  and  a  reenlistment  eligibility  (RE) 
code of  1, and she be awarded all back pay, travel pay and savings 
from her Uniformed Services Savings Deposit Program (USSDP). 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
The Article 15 she received in April  1996  was based on the results 
of  an  Air  Force  Office  of  Special  Investigations  (AFOSI) 
investigation  initiated  as  a  result  of  allegations  made  by  her 
then-husband  that  she  submitted  a  fraudulent  claim  for  Basic 
Allowance  for Quarters  (BAQ) and Variable Housing Allowance  (VHA) . 
He  also  tried  to get  her  investigated for fraudulent enlistment. 
The  investigation  revealed  no  evidence  of  fraudulent  enlistment. 
She  believes  it  should  be  noted  that  the  investigation  was 
initiated  hours  after  she  asked  her  husband  for  a  divorce. His 
actions were an attempt to get even by ruining her career. 
Her  husband  had  alleged  that  she  did  not  provide  him  with  any 
support but his allegation was contradicted by his own statements. 
In addition, she believes that she has provided sufficient evidence 
to  show that  she did, in fact, provide  financial  support to him, 
thereby verifying her entitlement to BAQ and VHA. 
The OS1  disregarded all  evidence of  her  innocence in this matter 
and  they  improperly expanded their investigation.  At  no time was 
she interviewed during the investigation.  She was never notified 
she  was  under  investigation  until  the  case  was  closed.  As  a 
result, the OS1 investigation was incomplete and vital evidence was 
omitted . 
It  was  her  husband  who  initiated the  actions  required  to  obtain 
dependent benefits.  He obtained all the paperwork for her to sign. 
The money  they  received was  for the  rent on their residence, his 
Since  .be 
hcte! 

 and  h i s   food. 
,

I---- 

?rai.?j.Fr  l y - L 2  ~

n

l--'l-l 

?t- 

. 

accompanied her to training, he was unable to provide for himself 
and  she was  the sole provider for all his living expenses.  When 
she  went  overseas,  she  was  notified  that  her  dependent  care 
benefits would cease unless she submitted another lease agreement. 
Her husband  told her he  had  renewed the  lease on their residence 
for another year and that she should write to the property manager 
to obtain a copy.  Such an agreement was not  included in the O S 1  
package but she has obtained a copy from her finance office for the 
Board's  review.  The Board should note that her name is not on the 
document.  Any  and  all  activities  that  took  place  between  her 
husband  and  his  brother  (the  property  manager) ,  including  the 
fraudulent  lease  agreement, was  the  responsibility  of  those  two 
individuals.  She was not involved. 
Her husband stated that they had never lived at the address cited 
in the Article 15.  This is untrue.  She lived at the cited address 
until  she went overseas.  To her knowledge, he still lives there. 
She has  provided  several pieces  of  evidence, including telephone 
bills, documents by  financial  institutions,  court  documents,  and 
affidavits, which she believes will show that they did live at the 
address.  This same address was also listed as her official Home of 
Record.  Her former employer  (the local Police Department) listed 
this same address as her home address. 
At  the time the Article  15 was  imposed, she was overseas and was 
unable  to obtain evidence to prove her  innocence with  respect  to 
the allegations concerning VHA  and BAQ within the 7 days allowed by 
her commander.  She believes that her submission will now show that 
she never defrauded the government and that  she provided adequate 
support for her dependent. 
Her  husband  alleged  that  she  had  committed  adultery.  This  was 
untrue.  He was referring to a telephone conversation they had and 
offered  no  proof  to  support  his  suspicions. 
She  believes  a 
thorough analysis of his allegations and statements will prove they 
are all complete untruths. 
She  accepted  the  Article  15  punishment  because  she  had  filed  an 
Inspector General  (IG) complaint for harassment at her assignment , 
she was  going  through a divorce, and  she was  under  an  excessive 
amount of stress. 
In support of her application, she provided a personal statement in 
which she elaborates on the above assertions, summarizes the course 
of her marriage to her ex-husband and her service, and provides her 
views  concerning  her  ex-husband's  actions  and  character  and  the 
asserted inaccuracies in the OS1  investigation.  She also provided 
copies  of  her  service  records, the  OS1  Report  of  Investigation, 
and, documents  cited  in  her  contentions and  associated  with  the 
issues  raised  in  her  application,  which  include  statements 
attesting  to  her  permanent  place  of  residence  during  the  period 
under review.  The applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit A. 

2 

AFBCMR 97-00066 

-, 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
On 26 April  1995,  the applicant enlisted in the Air Force Reserve 
under the Delayed Enlistment Program in the grade of airman first 
class  ( E - 3 )   for a period of 8 years.  She was a guaranteed training 
enlistee  for  service  as  an  Imagery  Interpreter Apprentice.  On 
12 July  1995,  having been  discharged  from the Air  Force Reserve, 
she enlisted in the Regular Air Force for a period of 4 years.  On 
13 August  1995,  based  on her disqualification  f o r   training as an 
Imagery  Interpreter  Apprentice,  she  was  offered,  and  accepted, 
classification as  a  Security Apprentice.  All  of  her  enlistment 
documents show her residence was X X X   XXth 
L In 
addition, prior to her enlistment, on 28 
cant 
had  signed  a  statement of  understanding concerning her  dependent 
care responsibilities. 
Following her completion of Basic Military  and Technical Training, 
the applicant was assigned to duties at -, 
with 
a report not  later than date of  14 January 1996.  Her assignment 
orders  indicated  she  would  not  be  accompanied  by  her  dependent 
spouse, who was not medically cleared.  The spouse%  residence was 
listed as XXX XXth 
On 17 January 1996, the applicant was counseled for behaving in an 
unprofessional manner with a commissioned officer.  On 24 January 
1996,  she  received  a  Letter  of  Reprimand  because  she  had  been 
continually observed in the officer's  company in direct violation 
of  her  superior's  verbal  instruction to  cease  this  relationship. 
On  9  February  1996, her  commander notified the applicant  that  he 
was  considering whether  she should be  punished  under Article  15, 
UCMJ, based on an allegation that she had  failed to obey an order 
to cease her unprofessional relationship with an officer between on 
or about 3 0   January to 4 February 1996  by passing  letters to him. 
The  applicant  was  advised  of  her  rights.  On  14  February  1996, 
having  consulted military  legal  counsel, the  applicant waived  her 
right  to  demand  trial  by  court-martial,  requested  a  personal 
appearance, and  submitted a statement  f o r   the  commander's  review. 
On 20 February 1996, having considered the matters presented by the 
applicant, the commander determined she had  committed one or more 
of  the  offenses alleged and  imposed punishment  on  her.  She  was 
in  grade  was 
reduced  in  grade  to  airman  basic.  The  reduction 
unless  sooner 
suspended  until  15  August  1996,  at  which  time, 
vacated,  it  would  be  remitted  without  further 
action. 
The 
subsequently 
applicant  initially  appealed  the  punishment  but 
withdrew her appeal. 
eted by agents 
On 14 March 1996, a Report of  Investigation was compl 
of the AFOSI.  It was indicated that the matter investigated during 
the period  30 January to 14 March  1996  was the alleged  fraudulent 
claim for BAQ.  The investigation had  its basis  in a statement by 
the  applicant's  spouse  on  30  January  1996  alleging  that  t h e  
applicant had falsely received BAQ.  The report was referred to her 
commander  for  whatever  action  he  deemed  appropriate. 
The 

3 

AFBCMR 97-00066 

~- 

that, when interviewed, the applicant declined 
and requested legal counsel. 

investigator stated 
to answer questions 
On  9 April  1996,  the applicant's  commander notified  the applicant 
that  he  was  considering  whether  she  should  be  punished  under 
Article  15,  UCMJ,  based  on  an  allegation  that  she  had  used  a 
certain paper  (a rental lease) which contained a false statement. 
which  she  knew  to 
be  false  and  fraudulent,  to  obtain  BAQ  at 
The applicant was advised of her rights.  On 
.ving  consulted  military  leqal  counsel,  the 
applicant  waived  her  right  to  demand  trial  by court-martial  and 
stated  she  did  not  desire  to  make  a  personal. appearance  or  to 
submit a statement for the commander's  review.  On 18 April  1996, 
the  commander  determined  she  had  committed  one  or  more  of  the 
offenses alleged and imposed punishment on her.  She was reduced in 
grade to airman basic.  The applicant  appealed the punishment  on 
18 April 1996 but withdrew her appeal on the following day. 
On  9  May  1996,  the  applicant's  commander notified  the  applicant 
that he was recommending she be discharged from the Air Force under 
the  provisions  of  AFI  36-3208  and  AFPD  36-32  for  a  pattern  of 
misconduct.  The  applicant  was  advised  of  her  rights and  that  a 
general 
(under  honorable  conditions)  discharge  would  be 
recommended. 
The  applicant  acknowledged  receipt  of  the 
notification.  On  16  May  1996,  after  consulting  military  legal 
counsel, the applicant waived her right to submit statements.  In a 
legal review of the discharge case file, dated 21 May 1996, a staff 
judge advocate found no errors or regularities and recommended that 
the discharge authority approve the proposed separation.  On 30 May 
1996, the discharge authority approved  the  recommended  separation 
and  directed  that  the  applicant  be  discharged  with  a  general 
discharge.  This officer stated that, after reviewing the record, 
he had decided against offering probation and rehabilitation. 
On 1 June 1996, the applicant was discharged because of  a pattern 
of  misconduct  with  a  general  (under  honorable  conditions) 
discharge.  She had  served 10 months  and  20  days on active duty. 
An RE code of 2B was assigned. 
On  5  June  1997,  USAFE/IG  finalized  their  investigation  of  a 
complaint filed by the applicant.  The IG's  analysis, findings and 
conclusions are at Exhibit B. 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
The Military Justice Division, AFLSA/JAJM, reviewed the portion of 
the appeal pertaining to the Article  15 imposed on  18 April  1996 
and  recommended denial.  After  summarizing the processing  of  the 
Article  15,  her  military  record,  and  her  contentions  and  the 
evidence  provided  to  support  her  appeal,  JAJM  indicated  that 
although the applicant's explanation of her marital difficulties is 
compelling, the evidence submitted with her request does not  fully 

4 

AFBCMR 97-00066 

support  her  position.  JAJM  stated  that  the  applicant  has  not 
submitted any hard evidence that either she or her husband resided 
at  +e  addreks  in question.  The  applicant  could 
canceled checks to prove she was paying rent at the 
but  did  not. 
us  his  credibility  is  an  issue, he  has 
husband's  bro 
stated  emphat 
neither  the  applicant  nor  his  brother 
resided at the 
ress.  The applicant could have obtained a 
rtment owners to establish her residency, but 
statement from 
she  did  not.  Despite  her  assertions, the  question  of  who  was 
paying the rent on the apartment remains unanswered. 

Further,  although  the  apartment 

JAJM stated that the applicant has also failed to address the other 
misconduct  which  formed the basis of  the  characterization of  her 
ultimate discharge.  She chose not to take advantage of the appeal 
process  and  chose  to  accept  her  punishment  without  providing  an 
explanation. 
After  reviewing  the  available records, JAJM  concluded  that  there 
are  no  legal  errors  requiring  corrective  action  regarding  the 
nonjudicial  punishment  action and  administrative  relief  by  their 
office is not possible  (see Exhibit C). 
The  Programs  and  Procedures  Branch,  AFPC/DPPRP,  reviewed  the 
applicant's  case for separation processing and indicated that there 
are  no  errors  or  irregularities  causing  an  injustice  to  the 
applicant.  DPPRP  stated  that  the  applicant's  discharge  complies 
with  directives  in  effect  at  the  time  of  her  discharge.  The 
records indicate that the applicant's military service was reviewed 
and the appropriate action was taken (Exhibit D). 
The  Special  Activities  Branch,  AFPC/DPPAES,  stated  that  the 
applicant's  RE  code  is  correct. 
The  type  of  discharge  drove 
assignment of the RE code (Exhibit E). 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
The applicant reviewed the advisory opinions and disagreed with the 
Air  Force  recommendations.  She  reiterated and  elaborated  on  her 
initial contentions.  She refers to a USAFE IG Investigation which 
she believes will support her claims of harassment which led to the 
initiation of the contested actions, including the first Article 15 
punishment  imposed in February 1996.  She would  like the Board to 
consider this IG Report before making a decision in her case. 
The applicant stated that the only "hard" evidence against her were 
the  statements by  her  ex-husband and  his  brother.  She  does  not 
believe that this constitutes "satisfactory" evidence since it was 
provided by an individual whose credibility is at issue. 

In  further  support  of  her  appeal,  she  provided  supportive 
statements by her parents, and a video tape showinq her ex-husband 

5 

AFBCMR 97-00066 

videotaping her coming out of the apartment cited on her official 
documents  and 
ex-husba