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
509 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 A--- and TSgt G---, 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 G--- 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 G---.  TSgt  G---  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 A--- and the other  mostly  taught  by  TSgt  C---.   Fourteen  of  the
students were contacted and have made statements, which are included in  the
application.  The statements read together reflect that TSgt A---  and  TSgt
C---taught virtually all of the classes, that TSgt G--- 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 A--- saw, for the  first  time  according  to  his
statement, applicant's folder, including the 57 evaluation forms.  TSgt A---
  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 G---,  who  purportedly  had  conducted
the evaluations and signed the forms, had in  March  2002  been  reassigned.
TSgt A--- emailed TSgt G---  to  ask  if  she  had  evaluated  applicant  as
reflected by the forms.  TSgt G--- 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 G---'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  A---  and
TSgt C---, 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 M---, the outgoing ALS flight chief.  SMSgt M---
, upon review of the form, signed a sworn statement denying  he  signed  the
form.  Besides denial of his signature, SMSgt M--- 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  G---
's signatures and that TSgt G--- may not have signed  her  signatures.   The
report also states the signature of SMSgt  M---  bears  features  frequently
associated  with  simulated/traced  signatures,   and   that   TSgt   G---'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  an  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 G---'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  G---'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  G---  as
the evaluator typed in, TSgt G--- 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  G---'s  signature  and
comments on the disputed forms, it does state  that  there  are  indications
that applicant may have written TSgt G---'s signatures and indications  that
TSgt G--- may not have written her signatures

SMSgt M---, 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 is it 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 S---,  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:

      Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr., Panel Chair
      Ms. Renee M. Collier, Member
      Ms. Barbara R. Murray, Member

By a majority vote, the Board voted to deny the request.  Ms. Collier  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.




                                             ROSCOE HINTON, JR.
                                             Panel Chair
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.




                                        RENEE M. COLLIER
                                        Panel Member




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.




                                        JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                        Director
                                        Air Force Review Boards
Agency