AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2011-05044 
 
COUNSEL:   
HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 
IN THE MATTER OF: 
   
   
 
   
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
 
1. The Article 15 she received on 5 April 2007 be removed from her 
records. 
 
2. She be reinstated to the rank/grade of master sergeant. 
 
3. She  be  allowed  to  reenter  the  Reserve  for  the  purpose  of 
finishing her final four years of satisfactory service in order to 
qualify for reserve retirement at age 60. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
The  Article  15  she  received  was  in  retaliation  for  allegations 
that she and several other co-workers were harassed by two senior 
non-commissioned  officers  while  deployed  from  their  Reserve  unit 
to Balad, Iraq.  The allegations were investigated by a Commander 
Directed Investigation (CDI) and were found to be substantiated. 
 
The first allegation of the Article 15 is that she failed to obey 
an  order,  violating  Article  92  of  the  Uniform  Code  of  Military 
Justice  (UCMJ)  by  wrongfully  allowing  a  male  into  her  sleeping 
quarters.  The remaining two offenses alleged sexual intercourse 
with three male military members was lined-out of the Article 15 
by the issuing commander as not being substantiated.  However, in 
the  Reprimand  portion  of  the  Article  15,  the  issuing  commander 
left in the following statement “You willfully disobeyed General 
Order  Number  1A  by  allowing  a  member  of  the  opposite  gender  to 
enter your sleeping quarters and committing the act of adultery. 
She should not be reprimanded for the commission of adultery when 
all of the allegations concerning sexual intercourse were stricken 
from the Article 15. 
 
The  issuing  commander  felt  the  only  remaining  allegation  on  the 
Article  15,  i.e.,  violation  of  Article  92  was  substantiated. 
However,  she  denies  this  allegation  and  cites  the  official 
statement of her roommate, dated 29 March 2007, who described the 
incident in question:  “The Applicant came back to our pod with a 
gentleman who entered the room along with her and briefly set some 

bags on her bed for her and immediately turned and left the room.”  
The applicant states her military records contain no prior adverse 
actions  of  any  kind;  that  she  received  awards  and  rapid 
promotions;  and  to  be  punished  because  of  the  allegation  that 
someone put laundry bags in her room first is unjust and second, 
even if true, the delivery of bags does not rise to the level of a 
visitation  and  therefore  the  punishment  she  received  is 
unjustified. 
 
She further states the counsel assigned to her during the time in 
question was stationed in Europe and was not readily available for 
discussions related to her case. 
 
In  support  of  the  appeal,  the  applicant  provides  a  personal 
statement;  copies  of  the  official  statements  used  during  the 
Article 15 process; letters from the three members listed in the 
Article  15,  AF  Form  3070,  Record  of  Nonjudicial  Punishment 
Proceedings; and Office of the Legislative Liaison correspondence. 
 
The  applicant’s  complete  submission,  with  attachments,  is  at 
Exhibit A. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
 
The  applicant  served  in  the  Air  Force  Reserves  in  the  grade  of 
master sergeant (E-7) during the matter under review. 
 
During  a  mobilization  tour  of  duty  to  Balad  Air  Base  (AB),  Iraq 
between  9  January  and  17  May  2007,  the  applicant  made  official 
allegations  against  two  senior  NCO’s  for  sexually  harassing  her 
and  several  other  female  co-workers.    While  a  CDI  was  initiated 
and found the allegations of sexual harassment substantiated, the 
two  offending  NCO’s  had  already  rotated  back  to  their  home  unit 
before  the  CDI  was  completed.    The  results  of  the  CDI  were 
forwarded  to  their  home  unit  along  with  recommendations  for 
discipline  from  the  initiating  commander  to  each  individual’s 
Reserve commander. 
 
The applicant’s complaint the CDI and subsequent findings led to 
her receipt of the Article 15 in question, as retaliation for her 
actions, was noted as being items pertaining to Headquarters Air 
Force Reserve Command (AFRC) resources and was accordingly sent to 
the  AFRC  Inspector  General  (IG)  for  evaluation.    The  AFRC/IG 
reviewed the complaint to determine whether or not it fell within 
the scope of their program and whether or not an investigation of 
her allegations of mistreatment and false accusations against her 
were substantiated. 
 
There is no further information, either in her records or in her 
application,  as  to  the  findings  of  the  AFRC/IG;  additionally, 
according  to  SAF/IG,  there  is  no  record  of  any  further 
investigation.  
 

2 

While  still  on  the  deployment  to  Iraq,  her  roommate  and  another 
female airman accused her of having improper sexual relationships 
with  several  different  men.    Both  provided  sworn  statements  to 
that effect with one statement accusing the applicant of actually 
engaging  in  sexual  intercourse  with  the  three  named  male 
individuals in her living quarters.  The applicant’s roommate was 
one of the female victims of the substantiated harassment that the 
applicant took upon herself as a senior NCO to report. 
 
These accusations led to the applicant being offered nonjudicial 
punishment under Article 15, UCMJ.  After consulting counsel, she 
accepted  the  Article  15  and  waived  her  right  to  demand  trial  by 
court-martial.  She presented written statements in her own behalf 
and made a personal appearance before the commander.   
 
The  Article  15  contained  one  violation  of  Article  92,  UCMJ  and 
three violations of Article 134, UCMJ:  
 
  1.  She  disobeyed  an  order  violating  the  UCMJ,  Article  92,  by 
wrongfully allowing visitation of a member of the opposite gender 
into her sleeping quarters. 
 
  2. In violation of UCMJ, Article 134, she, between on or about 
12 January 2007 and on or about 31 March 2007, did wrongfully have 
sexual  intercourse  with  three  different  men  who  were  not  her 
husband. 
 
On  7  April  2007,  the  commander  determined  the  evidence  did  not 
support  the  three  violations  of  Article  134  and  lined  out  those 
allegations.    The  commander  however,  did  find  the  violation  of 
Article  92  as  substantiated.    The  commander  imposed  punishment 
consisting  of  a  reduction  to  the  grade  of  TSgt  effective  with  a 
new DOR of 7 April 2007, forfeiture of $500 pay and a reprimand.  
The  applicant  appealed  the  decision  and  on  14  April  2007,  the 
appellate authority denied her appeal. 
 
The applicant was removed from her tour early and was demobilized 
on  17  May  2007.    She  continued  to  serve  with  the  AFR  until  she 
voluntarily  transferred  to  the  Wisconsin  Air  National  Guard 
(WIANG), date unknown.  She served with the WIANG in the grade of 
technical sergeant until she applied for and was granted an early 
termination of her enlistment due to a dependent hardship related 
to the needs of a disabled child.   
 
On 26 March 2010, she was honorably discharged from the WIANG. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
AFLOA/JAJM recommends a partial grant since the issuing commander 
found sufficient evidence did not exist to substantiate the three 
alleged violations of Article 134, UCMJ.  As such, they recommend 
removing any mention of sexual impropriety or adultery.   
 

3 

That  said,  JAJM  recommends  denying  her  request  to  set  aside  the 
Article 15 as the set aside action is actually the removal of the 
punishment which essentially restores the member to the position 
held before the imposition of the punishment, as if the action had 
never  been  initiated.    A  set  aside  should  not  be  routinely 
granted.  Rather, set aside is to be used strictly in the rare and 
unusual case where a genuine question about the service member’s 
guilt arises or where the best interests of the Air Force would be 
served. 
 
The applicant does not make a compelling argument that the Board 
should  overturn  the  commander’s  original,  nonjudicial  punishment 
decision on the basis of injustice.  In finding that the applicant 
did  violate  Article  92  of  the  UCMJ,  the  fact  the  commander 
determined  the  applicant  did  not  commit  the  alleged  offenses  of 
adultery shows that he gave careful and thoughtful consideration 
to  the  evidence  presented  to  include  his  finding  she  violated 
Article 92.   
 
While  she  alleges  procedural  errors  regarding  the  Article  15 
action, her rights were observed throughout the process as she was 
provided  legal  counsel  (despite  her  allegations  she  was  not 
adequately  represented),  she  was  afforded  and  took  advantage  of 
her rights to submit statements and appear before the commander, 
as  well  as  the  opportunity  to  reject  the  Article  15  and  demand 
trial by court-martial. 
 
Finally,  the  commander’s  ultimate  decision  on  the  Article  15 
action  is  firmly  based  on  the  evidence  of  the  case  and  the 
punishment  decision  was  well  within  the  limits  of  his  authority 
and discretion.  Therefore, only that portion of the reprimand the 
consisting  of  the  language  “and  committing  the  act  of  adultery” 
should be removed from the Article 15. 
 
The complete JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
Counsel  for  the  applicant  responded  to  the  JAJM  opinion  with  a 
multi-page statement with a statement from the applicant attached.  
Counsel  agrees  that  any  mention  of  adultery  on  the  Article  15 
should  be  removed  due  to  the  issuing  commander’s  finding  of 
insufficient evidence to support violations of Article 134. 
 
With  regard  to  the  violation  of  Article  92,  counsel  invites  the 
Board  to  consider  the  applicant’s  statement  that  no  man  entered 
her  quarters.    Further,  the  applicant  provides  an  amended 
statement  from  one  of  the  alleged  men  clarifying  that  he  never 
entered her living quarters.  Counsel further states for the sake 
of argument that if a man had entered her room to deposit a bag 
that such an action does not give rise to actual “visitation” as 
is  defined  in  the  Cambridge  Dictionary/American  English  Version.  
Additionally, Counsel notes that the JAJM opinion did not address 

4 

the  situation  regarding  the  Article  15  in  light  of  its  issuance 
under  the  auspices  of  the  sexual  harassment  claim  made  by  the 
applicant early in the deployment. 
 
The  applicant’s  complete  response,  with  attachments,  is  at 
Exhibit E. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 
 
1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 
law or regulations. 
 
2.  The  application  was  not  timely  filed;  however,  it  is  in  the 
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file. 
 
3.  Insufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice regarding her 
request to remove the Article 15 from her records, reinstatement 
of  her  former  rank  of  master  sergeant,  and  to  allow  her  to 
renter  the  Reserve  to  complete  her  final  four  years  of 
satisfactory service.  We took careful notice of the applicant's 
complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, 
we  agree  with  the  opinion  and  recommendation  of  the  Air  Force 
office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the 
basis  for  our  conclusion  that  the  applicant  has  not  been  the 
victim  of  an  error  or  injustice.    The  applicant’s  contentions 
are duly noted; however, we do not find these assertions, in and 
by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the evidence 
of  record  or  the  rationale  provided  by  the  Air  Force  Legal 
Operations  Agency.    We  are  not  persuaded  by  the  evidence  that 
the  actions  taken  by  her  commander  were  beyond  his  scope  of 
authority, inappropriate, or arbitrary and capricious.  We note 
that  while  deployed  to  Balad  Air  Base,  Iraq  the  applicant  made 
official  allegations  against  two  senior  NCO’s  for  sexual 
harassment.    While  the  Commander  Directed  Investigation  found 
the  allegations  of  sexual  harassment  substantiated,  the 
applicant’s Article 15 stemmed from the accusations made by her 
roommate  and  another  female  airman  who  accused  her  of  engaging 
in  sexual  intercourse  with  the  three  named  male  individuals  in 
her living quarters.  The applicant states the Article 15 was in 
retaliation  for  her  allegations  of  sexual  harassment  by  two 
senior  NCO’s;  however,  we  find  no  correlation  with  the  Article 
15  action.    Notwithstanding  the  applicant’s  view,  we  find 
insufficient  evidence  the  applicant  was  denied  any  rights 
entitled  to  under  the  Article  15  process,  to  include  her  right 
to  demand  trial  by  court–martial,  which  would  have  required  a 
higher  legal  standard  for  her  conviction.    By  accepting  the 
Article  15  forum,  the  applicant  entrusted  to  her  commander  the 
responsibility  to  decide  if  she  had  committed  the  alleged 
offense.    We  do  not  find  the  commander’s  actions  holding  her 
accountable for her misconduct to be unreasonable.  Therefore we 
do not find a basis to recommend granting the relief sought and 
must  recommend  that  all  requests,  with  the  exception  of  the 

5 

administrative  removal  of  the  words  “and  committing  the  act  of 
adultery” on the reprimand portion of the Article 15 be denied. 
 
4.  The  applicant  alleges  that  she  has  been  the  victim  of 
reprisal  and  has  not  been  afforded  full  protection  under  the 
Whistleblower Protection Act (10 USC 1034).  By policy, reprisal 
complaints must be filed within 60 days of the alleged incident 
or discovery to facilitate the IG’s investigation.    We note, 
as  stated  above,  a  CDI  was  initiated  to  investigate  the  sexual 
harassment  complaint;  however,  the  available  record  does  not 
substantiate  that  any  of  the  complaints  filed  alleged  reprisal 
and  it  appears  no  investigation  was  done.    Nevertheless,  we 
reviewed  the  evidence  of  record  to  reach  our  own  independent 
determination  of  whether  reprisal  occurred.    Based  on  our 
review, we do not conclude the applicant has been the victim of 
reprisal.  The applicant has not established that the Article 15 
or  other  actions  were  rendered  in  retaliation  to  making  a 
protected communication.  Additionally, based on the evidence of 
record,  it  is  clear  the  Article  15  action  would  have  occurred, 
based  on  her  actions,  whether  or  not  she  made  the  protected 
communication.  Therefore, it is our determination the applicant 
has  not  been  the  victim  of  reprisal  based  on  the  evidence  of 
record in this case. 
 
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  issue(s)  involved.  
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: 
 
The  pertinent  military  records  of  the  Department  of  the  Air 
Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that the non-
judicial  punishment  imposed  on  7 April  2007,  under  the 
provisions  of  Article  15,  Uniform  Code  of  Military  Justice, 
reprimand  portion,  be  amended  by  deleting  the  words  “and 
committing the act of adultery.”   
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
The  following  members  of  the  Board  considered  AFBCMR  Docket 
Number  BC-2011-05044  in  Executive  Session  on  16  October  2012, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 
 
 
Panel Chair 
 
 Member 
 
 Member 
 
 
 
 
 
 

     
      
     

 
 
 

 
 

6 

All  members  voted  to  correct  the  records,  as  recommended.    The 
following documentary evidence pertaining to BCMR Docket Number 
BC-2011-05044 was considered: 
 
    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 2 Nov 11, w/atchs. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 8 Feb 12. 
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Mar 12. 
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Counsel, dated 14 Apr 12, w/atchs. 
 
 
 
 
                                    
                                   Panel Chair 
 

7