RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-01567

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  13 NOVEMBER 2006

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Letter of Reprimand (LOR) and Unfavorable Information  File  (UIF)
be removed from her records.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The LOR and UIF received is not warranted.  She did not do anything in
violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and  believes
the punishment is based on allegations that have not  been  proven  by
any legal, moral or ethical standard.

In support of her request, applicant submits copies of the LOR and her
response to the LOR, statements from the Area Defense Counsel (ADC), a
character reference letter and statements from her credit union.   The
applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS)
reveals the applicant’s Total Active  Federal  Military  Service  Date
(TAFMSD) as 13 August 1985.  She is currently serving on  active  duty
in the grade of master sergeant (E-7), with an effective date and date
of rank of 1 May 2001.  The applicant has a UIF  disposition  date  of
28 April 2006.  Applicant's Enlisted Performance Report (EPR)  profile
for the last 10 reporting periods reflects a rating of “5”  (immediate
promotion).

Information  extracted  from  applicant’s   submission   reveals   the
applicant was served with an  LOR  by  her  commander  for  soliciting
another airman to provide her with Weighted  Airmen  Promotion  System
(WAPS) test materials before she tested for promotion to E-7) in March
2000.  She acknowledged receipt of the LOR on 12 April  2005.   On  26
April 2005, applicant and her military counsel submitted responses  to
the LOR.  The LOR was subsequently placed in a UIF.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

HQ AFPC/DPFF recommends the application be denied.  DPFF  states  that
WAPS testing fraud cases are at a minimum served with an  Article  15;
maximum punishment is court-martial.  In this  case,  the  statute  of
limitations had expired (five years) and as such, the  Air  Force  was
unable to punish the applicant to the fullest  extent  possible.   The
LOR and UIF were executed in accordance  with  applicable  guidelines.
The HQ AFPC/DPFF evaluation is at Exhibit C.


HQ AFPC/JA recommends the application be denied.   JA states  that  in
September  2002,  the  Air  Force  Office  of  Investigations  (AFOSI)
initiated an extensive investigation into allegations of  cheating  on
WAPS  tests  at  Ramstein  Air  Base,  Germany,  during  2000.   These
allegations came to light when SrA K, who had been court-martialed for
misconduct in 2001, informed the AFOSI that he and at least  12  other
military members cheated on WAPS tests dating back to 1993.   SrA  K’s
20 September 2002 sworn written statement identified the applicant  as
one of the members who he had provided with answers for the  Promotion
Fitness Examination (PFE) and Specialty Knowledge  Examination  (SKE),
which comprise the two parts of the WAPS test.

JA indicates that the applicant arrived at Ramstein AB at the  end  of
August 1999 and tested for promotion to E-7 in March 2000.  She scored
85 on the PME and 67.57 on the SKT, a very high score placing  her  in
the top 1% of those testing during that test cycle and ensuring her of
a promotion to E-7.

The OSI focused their investigation on the alleged ring  leader,  MSgt
S, and did not attempt to interview the applicant about the 2000  WAPS
compromise allegations until 17 August 2004.  After OSI read applicant
her Article 31 rights, she requested legal counsel and  the  interview
was terminated.  In  February  2005,  the  OSI  re-interviewed  SrA  K
concerning the  applicant.   SrA  K  provided  another  sworn  written
statement restating how he assisted the applicant  in  obtaining  WAPS
test questions in 2000 by sending them electronically to her.   SrA  K
clarified that the e-mail was sent to MSgt W,  who  was  stationed  at
MacDill AFB, FL, and who also  testing  for  E-7  in  2000,  to  avoid
applicant’s spouse from inadvertently finding the testing material and
getting suspicious.  Formal criminal procedures  against  the  alleged
cheating ring-leader, MSgt S, began in March 2005 when  his  commander
preferred court-martial charges.  At the Article 31 investigation held
at Rhein-Main in April 2005, SrA  K  testified.   SrA  K  was  granted
immunity for agreeing to cooperate with  the  Air  Force  during  this
investigation and his testimony included  applicant’s  involvement  in
cheating on the 2000 WAPS test.

By completion of MSgt S’s Article 31,  five  years  had  passed  since
applicant’s alleged  test  compromise  in  March  2000.   Accordingly,
prosecuting her in the military justice system was prohibited  because
the statute of limitations expired on these offenses.   Therefore,  on
12 April 2005, applicant’s commander issued her an LOR for cheating on
her 2000 WAPS test and established a  UIF.   Applicant  and  her  Area
Defense Counsel (ADC) submitted written responses to the LOR  claiming
the evidence was insufficient to support the allegations in  the  LOR.
Based  on  the  written  submissions,  applicant’s  commander   sought
additional legal advice from his  Staff  Judge  Advocate.   The  legal
staff requested an analysis of applicant’s prior  test  scoring.   The
analysis concluded that based on applicant’s Armed Services Vocational
Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) and experience  levels,  compared  to  others
testing at the same time, the unexpectedly high scores of  applicant’s
testing was compatible with “prior illegal knowledge  of  actual  test
content.”  The summary points out that applicant’s 2005  test  scores,
coming after she had been questioned by the OSI and after  SrA  K  had
been court-martialed, resulted in a much lower  test  score  than  her
prior WAPS testing.

JA states the  commander  carefully  considered  the  allegation  that
applicant cheated on her 2000 WAPS test.  He  disbelieved  applicant’s
claim of innocence and considered the  allegations  of  SrA  K  to  be
credible  and  sufficiently  corroborated   with   other   independent
information.  His decision to initiate the LOR was not an arbitrary or
capricious action as he thoroughly investigated the allegations to the
point of requesting additional evidence  after  receiving  applicant’s
response to  the  LOR.   In  JA’s  opinion,  this  serious  misconduct
warranted the stronger degree of official censure that an  LOR  and  a
UIF  provides.   Considering  the  totality  of   the   evidence   and
circumstances, it  cannot  be  said  that  the  commander  abused  his
discretion in taking these administrative  actions.   The  HQ  AFPC/JA
evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The applicant reviewed the advisory opinions and  indicates  that  her
Armed Forces Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) test scores from 1984
were erroneously used to make  an  assessment  on  her  potential  for
success in the Air Force.  As to her 2005 test score, she intended  to
retire and not test at all; however, she was advised against declining
as it may have been used against her in the current climate  of  force
shaping and she wanted to retire on her terms, not when the Air  Force
decided it was best.  Consequently, she did not put forth  the  effort
to prepare for the test.  SrA K’s statement identifying her as one  of
the recipients of PFE and SKT answers is an outright  false  statement
and his credibility should be questioned.  She  believes  AFPC/CC  had
his personal reason for issuing her an  LOR,  with  UIF,  but  it  was
definitely not due to an alleged violation of any  article  under  the
UCMJ.

Unfortunately, she must now show by preponderance of the evidence that
there exists some error or injustice warranting corrective  action  by
the board, yet there has been no preponderance of evidence proving she
committed  any  offense  or  violation  of   the   UCMJ.    The   only
justification is multiple revised sworn false  statements  by  SrA  K.
Simply put, the LOR, with UIF, is truly in error and is  an  injustice
because she has been punished for an action she did not  commit.   The
five requirements  submitted  by  HQ  AFPC/JA  may  be  the  technical
requirements for  issuing  a  reprimand;  however,  being  technically
sufficient simply means the LOR format  and  timeline  were  followed.
This does not speak to the lack of evidence, logic and/or validity  to
support the reason for the LOR.  The fact remains that the LOR and UIF
are based on unsubstantiated false statements from SrA K.  MSgt W  has
provided a signed statement to her ADC stating he neither received nor
provided her with illegal test material yet this fact  was  completely
ignored by HQ AFPC/CC.  If  MSgt  W  did  not  provide  her  with  the
material as  alleged  by  SrA  K,  how  then  can  she  be  guilty  of
soliciting/receiving this information  SrA  K  says  he  provided  her
through MSgt W?

The UIF expires in April 2006, but she strongly  believes  her  record
should be expunged as soon as possible because the contents are untrue
and based on false information.  The presence of  these  documents  in
her personnel record is negatively affecting her current job, upcoming
performance reports, potential assignments and influence the  way  she
is viewed by senior leadership.   She  has  provided  a  copy  of  the
“analysis” that was conducted by General P and  used  to  substantiate
her alleged guilt.

The applicant’s complete submissions, with attachments, are at Exhibit
F.
_________________________________________________________________

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.   We  thoroughly  and  carefully
reviewed the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits  of
her case.  However,  the  Board  majority  is  not  convinced  by  the
applicant’s  submission  that  the  LOR/UIF  action  was   unjust   or
unwarranted for the alleged offenses.  The Board majority noted  that,
in addition to the accuser’s signed  sworn  statements  regarding  the
information he had provided implicating the  applicant  of  wrongfully
requesting WAPS testing material, he also passed polygraph testing  on
this issue.  Furthermore, the Board majority noted the commander  made
his decision not to withdraw the LOR  and  UIF  only  after  reviewing
applicant’s rebuttal comments to the  LOR  and  requesting  additional
information and legal advice.  The Board majority is  of  the  opinion
that  the  applicant’s  commander,  being  aware   of   all   of   the
circumstances involved, was in the best position to determine  whether
the applicant should receive the LOR and UIF and  that  the  commander
acted on the basis of information he determined to be reliable when he
made  the  decision.   Although  the   applicant   presents   detailed
arguments, she has failed to provide persuasive evidence to show error
or injustice in the initiation of the LOR, that the  commander  abused
his  discretionary  authority  when  he  imposed  the  LOR,  that  the
punishment was too harsh, or that she  was  not  afforded  all  rights
granted by regulation.  Since the  respective  Air  Force  office  (HQ
AFPC/JA) has sufficiently addressed the applicant’s  contentions,  the
Board majority sees no reason to further expand on these  issues.   In
view of the foregoing and in the absence of persuasive evidence to the
contrary, the Board majority finds no basis to recommend granting  the
relief sought in this application.
_________________________________________________________________

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  this  application  in
Executive Session on 4 October 2005, under the provisions of  AFI  36-
2603:

                  Ms. B. J. White-Olson, Panel Chair
                  Ms. Josephine L. Davis, Member
                  Ms. Jean A. Reynolds, Member

By a majority vote, Ms. White-Olson and Ms. Reynolds voted to deny the
applicant’s request.  Ms. Davis voted to grant the applicant’s request
and submitted a minority report.  The following  documentary  evidence
was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2005-01567.

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 9 May 05, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  AFOSI Investigation (withdrawn).
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPFF, dated 2 Jun 05.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/JA, dated 29 Jun 05.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 July 2005.
   Exhibit F.  Letters from Applicant, dated 29 Jul 05, w/atchs,
               and 24 Aug 05, w/atchs.
   Exhibit G.  Minority Report.




                                   B. J. WHITE-OLSON
                                   Panel Chair



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

SUBJECT:  APPLICANT, Docket No:  BC-2005-01567

      I have carefully considered the circumstances of this case and
do not agree with the opinion of the majority of the panel that the
applicant’s request to void the Letter of Reprimand (LOR) and the
Unfavorable Information File (UIF) should be denied.

      After considering the evidence provided for my review, I agree
with the minority member of the panel that the applicant’s request
should be granted.  In this regard, I noted that the AFOSI Report of
Investigation contained conflicting statements by the accuser on how
he provided the Weighted Airmen Promotion System (WAPS) test materials
to the applicant.  Additionally, it was noted that the alleged
recipient of the testing material denied the applicant was involved in
any test compromise activity.  In view of the foregoing, I believe
substantial doubt has been created as to the applicant’s guilt in the
alleged wrongful solicitation of the WAPS test materials in 2000.  In
view of the totality of the circumstances involved, I believe any
possible doubt concerning this matter should be resolved in the
applicant’s favor and direct her records be corrected as set forth in
the attached directive.





 JOE G. LINEBERGER

 Director

 Air Force Review Boards Agency


AFBCMR BC-2005-01567




MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

      Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air
Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority
of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is
directed that:

      The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air
Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that the Letter of
Reprimand (LOR), acknowledged on 12 April 2005, and Unfavorable
Information File (UIF) action established as a result of this LOR, and
any and all references thereto, be, and hereby are, declared void and
removed from her records.




            JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                        Director
                                        Air Force Review Boards Agency