DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-00740 
COUNSEL:   
HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

 
                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 
 
IN THE MATTER OF: 
 
   
 
   
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
 
She  be  reinstated  back  into  the  United  States  Air  Force  with 
back pay and allowances; or in the alternative, her character of 
service be changed from general (under honorable conditions) to 
honorable and her narrative reason for separation be changed to 
a neutral designation. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
Because of her demonstrated outstanding record of character and 
duty  performance  for  over  five  years,  the  actions  by  her  chain 
of command, resulting in her separation were unjust and unfair.  
She believes that the adverse actions taken against her in 2007 
inaccurately  depict  a  pattern  of  misconduct  justifying 
administrative  separation  and  misrepresents  her  character  and 
duty performance. 
 
In  support  of  her  appeal,  the  applicant  provides  a  brief  from 
counsel;  copies  of  recent  performance  evaluations,  and  letters 
of character reference. 
 
The  applicant’s  complete  submission,  with  attachments,  is  at 
Exhibit A. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
 
The  applicant  enlisted  in  the  Regular  Air  Force  on  8  Jan  02.  
She  received  a  Letter  of  Counseling  (LOC),  on  or  about 
12 Jan 05, for failure to go to her appointed place of duty. 
 
While  serving  in  the  grade  of  staff  sergeant  (SSgt/E-5),  on  or 
about  2  Jul  07,  the  applicant  received  a  Letter  of  Reprimand 
(LOR)  for  knowingly  forging  the  signature  of  a  noncommissioned 
officer. 
 
She  received  nonjudicial  punishment,  on  17  Jul  07,  for  on  or 
about  3  Jul  07,  failing  to  obey  a  lawful  general  order,  by 

wrongfully  possessing  pornography  in  the  Central  Command 
(CENTCOM)  area  of  responsibility  (AOR).    Her  punishment 
consisted  of  a  reduction  to  the  grade  of  Senior  Airman  (SrA/E-
4). 
 
On 2 Aug 07, the applicant received nonjudicial punishment, for 
on  or  about  1  Aug  07,  she  failed  to  obey  a  lawful  order  by 
wrongfully  entering  the  sleeping  quarters  of  a  member  of  the 
opposite gender.  Her punishment consisted of a reduction to the 
rank  of  Airman  First  Class  (A1C/E-3)  and  a  suspended  reduction 
to the grade of Airman (Amn/E-2) until 1 Feb 08. 
 
The  squadron  commander  recommended  her  for  administrative 
discharge  action,  on  17  Sep  07,  for  a  pattern  of  misconduct, 
specifically, conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline.  
The  specific  reasons  for  the  proposed  action  were  based  on  the 
incidents cited above. 
 
After consulting with counsel, the applicant waived her right to 
an  administrative  discharge  board  hearing  and  submitted 
statements  in  her  own  behalf.    The  staff  judge  advocate  found 
the  case  file  legally  sufficient  to  support  a  discharge  and 
recommended  a  general  (under  honorable  conditions)  service 
characterization,  without  Probation  and  Rehabilitation  (P&R).  
The  discharge  authority  approved  the  separation  and  directed  a 
general discharge, without P&R. 
 
The  applicant  was  discharged  under  the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
3208, on 9 Oct 07, with service characterized as general (under 
honorable  conditions),  with  a  reason  for  separation  of 
misconduct,  and  issued  a  reentry  (RE)  code  of  2B.    She  was 
credited  with  five  years,  nine  months,  and  two  days  of  active 
duty service. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
AFPC/DPSOS  recommends  denial,  stating,  in  part,  based  on  the 
documentation  on  file  in  the  master  personnel  records,  the 
discharge  to  include  her  characterization  of  service  was 
consistent  with  the  procedural  and  substantive  requirements  of 
the  discharge  instruction  and  was  within  the  discretion  of  the 
discharge authority.   
 
According  to  the  governing  Air  Force  instruction,  commanders 
will  consider  facts  they  find  are  material  and  relevant.    The 
standard  of  proof  required  when  considering  a  discharge  is 
whether  the  basis  is  supported  by  a  preponderance  of  the 
evidence.  The applicant’s misconduct was inconsistent with the 
self-discipline  required  for  effective  military  service.    Her 
behavior  of  disobeying  general  orders  and  forging  signatures 
demonstrates  an  unwillingness  to  follow  the  rules  and 
regulations that the Air Force has set out for all airmen.  The 

applicant  has  clearly  failed  to  maintain  high  standards  of 
personal  conduct  that  the  Air  Force  requires  for  continued 
service. 
 
The complete AFPC/DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C. 
 
AFLSA/JAJM  recommends  denial,  stating,  in  part,  the  applicant 
has not shown a clear material error or injustice.   
 
In  the  discussion  of  the  case,  JAJM  notes  that  accepting 
nonjudicial punishment proceedings is simply a choice of forum, 
not  an  admission  of  guilt.    By  electing  to  resolve  the 
allegation  in  the  nonjudicial  forum,  the  applicant  placed  the 
responsibility to decide whether she had committed the offenses 
with  her  commander.    The  commander  had  to  weigh  all  the 
evidence,  including  the  credibility  of  the  various  witnesses, 
and  make  his  decision.    He  ultimately  resolved  the  issues  of 
whether the applicant committed the alleged offenses against her 
and her punishment was well within the commander’s discretionary 
authority to impose. 
 
In  addition,  they  note,  in  the  written  presentation  to  the 
Article 15 proceedings, she did not, as in her BCMR application, 
assert that she had no knowledge of how the pornographic images 
came to be on her camera.  Her written presentation states “[m]y 
boyfriend and I had taken some personal pictures with the camera 
on  17 May 2007.”    She  clearly  admits  that  at  least  one  of  the 
photographs is of herself, her boyfriend, or both.  Further, the 
applicant  now  asserts,  through  counsel,  that  there  is  an 
exception to the order prohibiting possession of pornography in 
the CENTCOM AOR.  It is, according to counsel, not a violation 
of the order if the pornographic image is stored on a personal 
device and access to the device is limited.  That is, of course, 
inconsistent with the order and, simply, an incorrect statement 
of the law. 
 
After  reviewing  the  applicant’s  material,  it  is  clear  that  her 
issue  is  not  with  the  process,  but  the  result.    The  system 
depends on the commander amassing the evidence on which to make 
a reasoned decision to begin the nonjudicial punishment process 
and  the  individual,  with  the  aid  and  advice  of  her  counsel, 
assisting  the  commander  in  making  the  decision  by  presenting 
evidence  in  defense,  mitigation  or  extenuation.    There  is  no 
evidence  that  the  process  did  not  work  properly  in  this  case, 
other  than  the  applicant’s  natural  disagreement  with  the 
results.  Not surprisingly, she and her counsel did not and do 
not  come  to  the  same  conclusions  reached  by  the  commander  and 
the  appeal  authority.    While  a  different  fact  finder  may  have 
come to a different conclusion, the commander’s findings are not 
either arbitrary or capricious and should not be disturbed. 
 
The complete AFLSA/JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit D. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 

 
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
A  copy  of  the  Air  Force  evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the 
applicant  on  23  Dec  10  for  review  and  comment  within  30  days.  
As  of  this  date,  no  response  has  been  received  by  this  office 
(Exhibit E). 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 
 
1.  The  applicant  has  exhausted  all  remedies  provided  by 
existing law or regulations. 
 
2.  The application was timely filed. 
 
3.  Sufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate  the  existence  of  error  or  injustice  warranting 
corrective  action.    We  note  the  applicant’s  request  for 
reinstatement, with back pay and allowances, and a change to her 
character  of  service  to  honorable.    However,  the  discharge  and 
the character of service appear to comply with the governing Air 
Force instructions and we found no evidence that her separation 
was  inappropriate.    Notwithstanding  the  above,  while  we  do  not 
condone  the  applicant’s  misconduct,  we  believe,  based  on  her 
exceptional  record  of  performance  prior  to  the  incidents  which 
led  to  her  administrative  separation  and  the  letters  of 
character  reference  submitted  in  the  applicant’s  behalf,  that 
her  narrative  reason  for  separation  should  be  changed  to 
“Secretarial  Authority.”    Therefore,  in  view  of  the  above,  we 
recommend  the  applicant’s  record  be  corrected  to  the  extent 
indicated below. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: 
 
The  pertinent  military  records  of  the  Department  of  the  Air 
Force  relating  to  APPLICANT,  be  corrected  to  show  that  on 
9 October  2007,  she  was  discharged  under  the  provisions  of 
AFI 36-3208,  (Secretarial  Authority),  with  a  Separation  Program 
Designator (SPD) code of “KFF.” 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
The  following  members  of  the  Board  considered  AFBCMR  Docket 
Number  BC-2010-00740  in  Executive  Session  on  1  February  2011, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 
 
All  members  voted  to  correct  the  records,  as  recommended.    The 
following documentary evidence was considered: 
 
     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 17 Feb 10, w/atchs. 

     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 1 Sep 10. 
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, undated. 
     Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Dec 10. 
 
 
 
 
                                   Chair