RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2011-01366
				COUNSEL:  
				HEARING DESIRED:  YES

____________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1. Her Officer Performance Report rendered for the period 5 April 
2009 through 18 December 2009 be expunged from her record.  

2. Her Letter of Reprimand (LOR), dated 8 July 2009, be expunged 
from her Officer Selection Record (OSR).  

3. Her permanent disqualification from the Personnel Reliability 
Program (PRP) be expunged from her record.  

______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The adverse actions taken against her were taken without proof 
and without regard for her demonstrated integrity throughout her 
career.  Senior Air Force officers knowingly and willingly 
destroyed her career as an African-American officer and pilot.  
Her squadron commander had motive to harm her career because of 
his anti-female bias and the fact he was preoccupied with her 
husband’s alleged crimes and the presumption that she was “guilty 
by association.”  This is evident by the substantiation of an 
Military Equal Opportunity (MEO) allegation that an environment 
hostile to females existed within her squadron.  

In support of her appeal, the applicant provides a statement from 
her counsel, and copies of the contested OPR, LOR, personal 
information documents, PRP decertification, Spirit and Intent 
interview slides, her response to the LOR, witness statement and 
interview notes, electronic communications, memo for record, 
Commander Directed Investigation (CDI) appointment letter, CDI 
background, biography, OPRs, interviews, and disposition of 
Informal Military Equal Opportunity (MEO) Allegations.  

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit A.

____________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in 
the grade of major (O-4).  

On 28 May 2009, the applicant’s commander initiated an 
investigation as the result of the applicant’s PRP interview.  It 
was alleged the applicant knowingly and willfully failed to 
reveal that she was questioned by the Air Force Office of Special 
Investigations (AFOSI) in 2004 in conjunction with her husband’s 
court-martial for drug use while he was on active duty.  The CDI 
was conducted from 28 May 2009 to 5 June 2009 at Aviano Air Base, 
Italy, to investigate the allegation that the applicant failed to 
comply with her obligations pursuant to the PRP and her security 
clearance status by misleading, or by omitting material 
information to the United States Air Force with regard to her 
husband’s criminal activities.  The CDI Report of Investigation, 
dated 5 June 2009, indicates the allegation was substantiated.  

On 8 July 2009, she was issued an LOR for providing a false 
statement to her squadron commander during a “Spirit of Intent” 
PRP Interview in violation of Article 92, Uniform Code of 
Military Justice (UCMJ).  The applicant acknowledged receipt of 
the LOR and provided a response on 20 July 2009.  On 30 July 
2009, after reviewing the applicant’s written matters, her group 
commander decided to uphold the LOR.  As a result, an Unfavorable 
Information File (UIF) was updated in the Military Personnel Data 
System with an expiration date of 7 July 2011.  On 20 October 
2009, the applicant’s wing commander decided the LOR would be 
filed in her OSR.  

The applicant received a referral OPR for the period 9 April 2009 
through 18 December 2009 due to the substantiated allegation of 
providing a false official statement during a “Spirit and Intent” 
PRP recertification interview.  The applicant filed an appeal 
through the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB); however, the 
ERAB was not convinced the report was unjust or inaccurate and 
denied her request for relief.  

A 31st Fighter Wing Commander’s letter, dated 25 February 2010, 
Subject: Informal Military Equal Opportunity (MEO) Allegations, 
addressed to the applicant, indicated that five of six 
allegations were not substantiated.  However, the one 
substantiated allegation indicated there was an environment 
hostile to females within the 555th Fighter Squadron as a result 
of the squadron visual signal (a sexual reference to what a man 
could do with his fingers when penetrating a woman’s vagina and 
anus simultaneously); displaying “swimsuit issue” type photos of 
women during weapons academics; displaying pornographic images of 
women during periodic squadron events of “Merges;” and/or having 
pornographic materials prevalent within the squadron area, to 
include the bar area.  

On 28 November 2011, the applicant’s counsel requested her appeal 
be temporarily withdrawn to allow the applicant time to respond 
to multiple advisory opinions.  On 12 January 2012, the 
applicant’s counsel requested his client’s appeal be reinstated.  

The remaining relevant facts, extracted from the applicant’s 
military service records, are contained in the evaluations by the 
Air Force offices of primary responsibility at Exhibits C through 
F.  

____________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

AFPC/DPSIMC recommends denying the applicant’s request to have 
her LOR and UIF removed from her OSR.  DPSIMC states that as 
directed by Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2907, Unfavorable 
Information File Program, the LOR and UIF are official records of 
unfavorable information on a member that are initiated by a 
member’s commander.  The UIF is a file for documenting 
administrative, judicial, or non-judicial censures concerning 
negative aspects of the member’s performance, responsibility, or 
behavior.  LORs are mandatory for file in the UIF for 
commissioned officers.  

DPSIMC indicates that after reviewing the applicant’s request, 
they have validated the process was done in accordance with AFI 
36-2907.  The commander acted within his authority when deciding 
to place the applicant on an LOR/UIF.  

The complete DPSIMC evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C.  

AFPC/DPSIDE recommends denying the applicant’s request to void 
and remove the contested OPR.  DPSIDE states that based upon 
DPSMIC’s evaluation indicating that the legitimacy of the 
applicant’s LOR is not in question, its inclusion as a comment in 
the referral OPR is appropriate and in line with all applicable 
Air Force instructions and guidance.  An evaluation report is 
considered to represent the rating chain’s best judgment at the 
time it is rendered.  Once a report is accepted for file, only 
strong evidence to the contrary warrants correction or removal 
from an individual’s record.  The applicant has not substantiated 
in any way that the contested OPR was not rendered in good faith 
by all evaluators based on the knowledge available at the time.  

DPSIDE states the applicant has not provided compelling evidence 
to show that the report is unjust or inaccurate as written.  
Based on the lack of corroborating evidence provided, and the CDI 
finding that backs up the allegation of misconduct, they 
recommend that the report not be voided from the applicant’s 
permanent record.  

The complete DPSIDE evaluation is at Exhibit D.  

AFPC/PB recommends denying the applicant’s request to remove her 
LOR from her OSR.  PB states that AFI 36-2608, Chapter 9, 
establishes procedures for filing LORs into the OSR and 
removal/early removal procedures for officers.  Paragraph 9.3.8, 
specifically states a LOR will remain filed in the OSR until the 
officer is afforded one In-the-Primary Zone (IPZ) or Above-the-
Primary Zone (APZ) promotion consideration.  The applicant will 
meet the Calendar Year 2012A Lieutenant Colonel Board tentatively 
scheduled for March 2012.  She may appeal to her senior rater 
after her IPZ look to have it removed.  They have found no record 
that the wing commander or issuing authority made a decision to 
direct early removal of the LOR from the OSR.  

The complete PB evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit E.  

AFPC/JA recommends denial.  JA states that after reviewing the 
case file and the advisories provided by other AFPC directorates, 
they concur with the Air Force advisory recommendations.  The 
applicant has provided no evidence to support her appeal other 
than her own versions of the events.  The CDI conducted by an 
impartial investigating officer, corroborated the squadron 
commander’s version of events, and substantiated the applicant 
failed to comply with her obligations pursuant to PRP and her 
security clearance status by misleading, or by omitting material 
information to the Air Force with regard to her husband’s 
criminal activities.  

The complete JA evaluation is at Exhibit F.

____________________________________________________________

COUNSEL’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

Two of the four advisory opinions are of no probative value.  
They merely recite what is already known about the procedural 
status of the case.  JA remarkably finds proof that the applicant 
lied in the year old recollection of an interviewer who said 
generally that he used a list of written questions and that the 
applicant must have answered “no” to these questions.  As they 
have previously demonstrated in their application, the 
interviewer could not say anything more than he generally asked 
all 14 interviewees the written questions and that the applicant 
must have answered “no” because there was no discussion of the 
substance of the question relating to family members being 
interviewed by the Air Force Office of Investigation (AFOSI).  
There is no “answer recorded” anywhere.  Had there been a 
contemporaneous memorialization of his client’s answers to each 
question they would not be filing this appeal; however, there was 
none.  Her voluntary disclosure on 29 May 2009 contradicts the 
conclusion that she lied a year earlier, particularly in view of 
the fact that on 26 May 2009 her husband was a criminal suspect 
and her involvement at the time was unknown.  The interviewer’s 
concern over the applicant’s husband was the prime motivator 
here.  Relief should be granted.

The counsel’s complete rebuttal, with attachments, is at Exhibit 
H.  

______________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS 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 took 
notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the 
merits of the case and find that the applicant’s entire 
argument hinges upon the assertion that the PRP Certification 
Interviewer did not verbalize several questions during the 
briefing, one of which was the question about her ever being 
interviewed by AFOSI.  However, we find no evidence to support 
the conclusion that the interviewer skipped several questions, 
to include this question, as normal procedures is that all 
questions in this type of briefing are required to be asked.  
The applicant has provided no evidence to support her 
contentions other than her own version of the events.  A CDI 
substantiated the applicant misled, or omitted material 
information to the United States Air Force with regard to her 
husband’s criminal activities during her PRP “Spirit of 
Intent” interview.  In considering the complete evidence, the 
results of the CDI, and the circumstances of this case in its 
totality, we believe in this instance any doubt should be 
resolved under the presumption that the commander, with 
exception of documenting all responses, conducted the PRP 
interview properly.  We note the applicant indicates, through 
her counsel, that she read the PRP Certification questions on 
the interviewer’s computer screen.  Due to the seriousness of 
the interview and the applicant’s position as an Air Force 
officer, we believe the applicant was obligated to answer all 
questions and be forthcoming with any information even if it 
could be considered derogatory.  As a result, we find the 
applicant has not provided evidence to show the commander’s 
actions were arbitrary or capricious or exceeded his 
discretionary authority.  Therefore, we agree with the 
opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of 
primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis 
for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim 
of an error or injustice.  Accordingly, we find 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 material 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 this application.

______________________________________________________________
_

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2012-01366 in Executive Session on 30 August 2012, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in 
connection with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-01366:

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 Jan 12, w/atchs.
Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIMC, dated 31 May 11, w/atch.
Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIDE, dated 29 Aug 11.  
Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/PB, dated 23 Sep 11, w/atch.
Exhibit F.  Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 11 Oct 11.  
Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Oct 11. 
Exhibit H.  Letter, Counsel, dated 12 Jan 12, w/atchs. 
Exhibit I.  Unredacted Commander Directed Report of 
            Investigation (withdrawn)




								
								Panel Chair
8

6