RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2008-02013
            INDEX CODE:  111.01
      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  MR.  RAYMOND J. TONEY
            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  Her Letter of Reprimand (LOR) dated 7  December  2006  be  removed
from her records.

2.  Her  Unfavorable  Information  File  (UIF)  be  removed  from  her
records.

3.  She be promoted to the rank of master sergeant (MSgt) effective  1
July 2007 with back pay, benefits and allowances.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Through counsel applicant states she was issued an LOR  for  allegedly
having an unprofessional relationship with another Airman, who was not
in her chain of  command  or  a  member  of  her  unit.   She  had  no
professional interaction whatsoever with the Airman.   She  began  the
relationship after she and her former husband had agreed to a divorce.
 The divorce was the result of  her  former  husband’s  affairs  while
deployed to Iraq.  The relationship was not unprofessional as  defined
by Air Force instructions.  The relationship had absolutely no  impact
on her  unit’s  mission,  performance,  morale,  or  leadership.   The
adverse actions taken against her therefore were grossly  exaggerated,
disproportionate, and unjust.

It’s clear the main concern of the  Air  Force  is  the  avoidance  of
relationships that adversely affect, or may adversely affect,  morale,
discipline,  unit  cohesion,  respect  for   authority,   or   mission
accomplishment.  It is perfectly clear that her  relationship  had  no
such impact.  She admitted her relationship resulted from a  lapse  in
judgment, in that she sought the comfort of another  man  while  still
legally married, though she was divorcing.  She never admitted, and in
fact stated otherwise, that the relationship had any impact whatsoever
on her unit or the authority of her command.  And in truth it did not.

A lapse in judgment in this context certainly could be conduct subject
to informal counseling, yet it did not  result  in  an  unprofessional
relationship as the Secretary the Air Force chose to define it.   Even
if the relationship were unprofessional, the punishment was excessive.
 The record demonstrates her commander counseled  her  concerning  her
relationship.  He stated  she  continued  to  have  contact  with  the
Airman, although he did not give her a direct order to  terminate  the
relationship.  She did so in significant part because of her pregnancy
and the resulting need for discussion and planning between the two  of
them.  The commander subsequently issued her a no contact order, dated
27 October  2006,  with  which  she  fully   complied.    The   action
effectively ended the matter, or certainly should have, and no further
discipline was  necessary  or  required.   On  7  December  2006,  the
commander presented her with the LOR.   Her  conduct  in  the  interim
period was impeccable, as usual.  She did not violate the  no  contact
order and was not accused by her commander of having done so.   Rather
than non-recommending her for promotion to MSgt, her  commander  could
have  taken  a  more  appropriate  and  less  destructive   route   of
recommending the deferral of her promotion for a period of up to three
months.

If the Board feels constrained from awarding her  a  full  retroactive
promotion with all back  pay,  benefits,  and  allowances,  it  should
consider applying retroactively a 90-day or less promotion deferral as
permitted  by  the  AFI.   She  has  sustained  brilliant  performance
throughout her entire career.  She admitted to  a  one-time  error  in
judgment.  She never denied or tried to hide  her  relationship.   She
never  disobeyed  an  order,  and  she  continued  to  excel  in   her
performance of duties.  Her integrity, honesty, and loyalty are  above
reproach.  The Board should not allow  a  single  sexual  relationship
that was not unprofessional or in any manner prejudicial to  her  unit
or the Air Force to  so  severely  damage  such  a  distinguished  and
valuable career.

In support of her request, applicant provided a 20 page brief from her
counsel, a copy of an awards and decoration  printout,  copies  of  AF
IMTs  910,  Enlisted  Performance  Report  (AB   thru   TSGT);   email
communiqués, LOR Memorandums, AF Form  1058,  Unfavorable  Information
File Action; statements and character reference letters, AFI  36-2909,
Professional  And  Unprofessional   Relationships;   Notification   of
Nonrecommendation for Promotion letter, an extract from  AFI  36-2502,
Airman Promotion  Program  and  other  documents  extracted  from  her
military personnel records.

Her complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Military Personnel Data System (MILPDS)
indicates that the applicant enlisted in the Air Force on 13 July 1992
and is currently serving in the grade  of  technical  sergeant  having
assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank (DOR) of  1  June
2004.

On 15 June 2006, she was tentatively selected for  promotion  to  MSgt
during cycle 06E7.

On 7 December 2006, the applicant was issued an LOR for being involved
in an inappropriate relationship, in direct violation of  the  Uniform
Code of Military Justice, Article 92, Professional and  Unprofessional
Relationships.  On 7 December 2006, she acknowledged  receipt  of  the
LOR.

On 8 December  2006,  she  sent  a  rebuttal  to  the  commander.   On
11 December 2006, the commander made his final decision to initiate an
AF Form 1058, UIF action.

On 20  December  2006,  she  acknowledged  receipt  of  the  UIF.   On
4 January 2007, she provided a rebuttal to the UIF and  on  10 January
2007, the commander  finalized  the  UIF  and  nonrecommeded  her  for
promotion to MSgt.

On 26 June 2008, she was again selected for promotion to the grade  of
MSgt during cycle 08E7 with a promotion sequence number of 3136.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSIMC recommends denial of her request to  remove  the  LOR  and
UIF.  DPSIMC states as directed by AFI 36-2907 Unfavorable Information
File Program, the UIF is an official record of unfavorable information
on a member that is initiated by a member’s commander.  It is  a  file
for  documenting  administrative,  judicial  or  nonjudicial  censures
concerning   negative   aspects   of   the    member’s    performance,
responsibility or behavior.  In this case, the  LOR  dated  7 December
2006, was filed in the UIF.  An individual  has  three  duty  days  to
acknowledge the AF Form 1058 with the  intended  actions  and  provide
pertinent information before the commander makes the  final  decision.
She did provide rebuttal comments and the commander initiated the  UIF
per the instructions of AFI 36–2907.   After  reviewing  her  request,
DPSIMC validates the Article 15 [sic] and  UIF  were  administered  in
accordance with the AFI.

The complete DPSIMC evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPSOE defers to  the  recommendation  of  DPSIMC  concerning  the
issuance of the LOR and subsequent establishment  of  the  UIF.  DPSOE
states the applicant was tentatively selected for  promotion  to  MSgt
during  cycle  06E7.   She  received  PSN  4423.0  which  would   have
incremented 1 July 2007; however, her promotion was cancelled  due  to
the establishment of the UIF [sic].

The complete DPSOE evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant responded thru counsel stating the advisory opinion does
not add anything to the existing record of  facts  and  evidence.   It
erroneously states she received nonjudicial punishment  under  Article
15.  This is incorrect, she did not undergo nonjudicial punishment and
such action was never recommended.   She  was  recently  selected  for
promotion to MSgt and this demonstrates that  her  admitted  error  in
judgment was a minor, one-time issue.  She has continued to  give  her
all despite the loss of promotion, LOR  and  UIF.   She  believes  the
punishment was excessive.

The complete response is attached 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 or that her previous promotion to
MSgt should be reinstated.  The Board majority noted that the offenses
cited in the LOR and UIF are supported by the evidence of  record  and
evidence has not been presented which would lead them to  believe  the
reprimand and the removal of her name from  the  promotion  list  were
improper. Furthermore, the Board majority noted the commander made his
decision to issue the LOR and establish the UIF only  after  reviewing
applicant’s rebuttal comments to the LOR.  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   and non-
recommended her for promotion, that the punishment was too  harsh,  or
that  she  was  not  afforded  all  rights  granted   by   Air   Force
instructions.  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.

4.  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.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The  applicant  be  notified  that  the  evidence  presented  did  not
demonstrate the existence of error or injustice; that the  application
was denied without a personal appearance;  and  that  the  application
will only be reconsidered upon  the  submission  of  newly  discovered
relevant evidence not considered with the application.
_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2008-02013 in Executive  Session  on  16  September  2008,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr.  Joseph D. Yount, Panel Chair
                 Mr.  Grover L. Dunn, Member
                 Mr.  Richard K. Hartley, Member

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

  Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 11 May 2008, w/atchs.
  Exhibit B.  Master Military Personnel Records.
  Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIMC, dated 13 May 2008.
  Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 9 June 2008, w/atchs.
  Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 August 2008.
  Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, not dated.
  Exhibit G.  Letter, Minority Report, XX September 2008.




                                   Joseph D. Yount
                                   Panel Chair



AFBCMR BC-2008-02013



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

SUBJECT:  AFBCMR Application of XXXXXXX

      I have carefully considered all the circumstances of this case and do
not agree with the majority members of the panel that the applicant’s
request should be denied in its entirety.

      The applicant is requesting that the administrative actions taken
against her be removed from her records and the decision to non-recommend
her for promotion to master sergeant be reversed.  The aforementioned
actions were the result of what her commander determined was an
unprofessional relationship with another Airman.  The applicant contends
that the relationship did not rise to the level of "unprofessional" as
defined in Air Force Instructions.  The majority of the Board, believing
that her commander was in the best position to render a determination in
this matter and finding no evidence that her commander abused his
discretionary authority, recommends denial of her request.  The minority
member agrees with the applicant that there is no evidence that her
relationship was "unprofessional' and believes the actions of her commander
were unnecessary in this case.


      I do not necessarily agree with the minority member that
administrative action was unnecessary in this case.  However, taking into
consideration her record of exemplary service prior to and subsequent to
the events under review, it is my opinion that reasonable doubt has been
established as to whether the decision to non-recommend her for promotion
was overly harsh and that deferral of her promotion would have been the
most appropriate action to have taken.  I further believe that the benefit
of any doubt in this matter should resolved in her favor.  Therefore, it is
my decision that her records be corrected accordingly.






                                                                        JOE
G. LINEBERGER

Director
                                                                        Air
Force Review Boards Agency

AFBCMR BC-2008-02013





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 XXXXXXX, be corrected to show that:

           a.  The nonrecommendation for promotion to the grade of
master sergeant initiated on 20 December 2006 be, and hereby is, declared
void and removed from her records.


           b.  Her promotion to the grade of master sergeant was
deferred from 1 July 2007 through 30 September 2007.

            b.  She was promoted to the grade of master sergeant effective
and with a date of rank of 1 October 2007.





  JOE G. LINEBERGER

  Director

  Air Force Review Boards Agency