DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-01124 
COUNSEL:  NONE 
HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 
                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 
 
IN THE MATTER OF: 
 
    
 
   
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
 
Her retirement rank be reinstated to Master Sergeant, E-7, from 
26 July 2010 to the present date.   
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
She  was  unjustly  punished  through  an  Article  15  action  six 
months  prior  to  her  retirement.    She  was  required  to  forfeit 
$1,742.00  pay  for  two  months  and  was  reduced  to  the  rank  of 
Technical  Sergeant,  E-6.    This  injustice  has  affected  her 
retirement pay due to the fact that she was under the final pay 
retirement plan and not the top 3 retirement pay plan.   
 
She believes the record to be unjust because the Article 15 was 
punishment  for  the  crime  of  larceny  of  a  mini  micro  chip  from 
the  Base  Exchange,  however,  her  commander  was  aware  that  the 
micro  chip  was  later  recovered  in  the  store;  nevertheless,  he 
took that fact into account and punished her anyway.  She feels 
the  punishment  was  actually  reprisal  for  her  filing  of  a  2008 
congressional complaint on her unit leadership.   
 
On 5 February 2008, a Commander-Directed Investigation (CDI) was 
chartered by the Commander, Eighteenth Air Force, to investigate 
six  allegations  the  applicant  originally  filed  through 
congressional  channels.    The  CDI  was  conducted  from  7 February 
to 24 March 2008, and approved by the commander on 4 April 2008.  
The  allegations  and  Investigating  Officer  (IO)  findings  are  as 
follows: 
 
  Allegation  1.    Squadron,  and  Mental  Health  Flight  leadership 
engaged  in  behavior  with  racial  discrimination  overtones.    The 
IO  addressed  whether  African  American  and  other  minority  group 
members  were  treated  harshly  and/or  inappropriately.    He  also 
examined leadership action taken in the aftermath of the suicide 
of  a  flight  member  and  the  leadership  actions  taken  in  the 
aftermath of an altercation between two majors within the mental 
health flight.  This allegation was not substantiated.   
 
  Allegation 2.  There are, or have been, inappropriate dual and 
unethical  relationships  between  supervisors  and  subordinates  in 

the  Mental  Health  Flight.    The  IO  addresses  the  working 
relationships between two specific majors within the flight, and 
the  working  relationship  between  a  major  and  a  civilian  within 
the flight.  He also addressed the use of employees to serve as 
escorts,  on  duty  time,  for  a  flight  member’s  civilian  court 
appearances.  He also looked into whether or not assigned flight 
members  engaged  in  “questionable  behavior”  involving  patient 
records.  This allegation was not substantiated.   
   Allegation  3.    Mental  Health  Flight  personnel  engaged  in 
improper  or  criminal  conduct.    The  IO  addressed  whether  during 
an  August  2006,  Health  Service  Inspection  (HSI)  of  the  Mental 
Health Flight enlisted staff members were directed to engage in 
unethical actions and patient records were taken home by one of 
the  assigned  staff  members.    He  also  assessed  whether 
improprieties  occurred  and,  if  so,  what  command  actions  were 
taken  by  group  leadership.    This  allegation  was  not 
substantiated.   
   Allegation 4.  Mental Health Flight leadership is ineffective, 
and  as  a  consequence,  the  unit  is  not  mission  ready.  The  IO 
examined  how  effective  the  group  supervisory  and  command  chain 
investigated  and  addressed  alleged  misconduct  and  personnel 
concerns.  He concluded that despite a poor working environment 
the  mission  was  being  accomplished  and  this  portion  of  the 
allegation  was  not  substantiated.    However,  he  concluded  that 
the allegation of leadership ineffectiveness was substantiated.   
 
  Allegation  5.    There  has  been  a  “downward  spiral  of  morale” 
and  hostility  in  the  Mental  Health  Flight.    The  IO  found  the 
flight  work  environment  to  be  poor  and  the  majority  of 
testimonies reported an environment filled with high stress and 
low morale.  This allegation was substantiated.   
 
 
  Allegation  6.    Abuse  of  command  authority  and  racial 
discrimination.    Although  the  IO  found  there  were  problems  in 
the  professional  working  relationships  between  flight  members, 
this allegation was not substantiated.   
 
In  his  summary  letter  (Exhibit  F)  the  IO  advised  the  applicant 
that  if  she  was  not  satisfied  with  the  outcome  of  the 
investigation  she  could  request  further  review  through  command 
channels  and  she  also  had  the  right  to  petition  the  Air  Force 
Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR).   
 
In  support  of  her  request,  the  applicant  provides  a  personal 
statement, copies of her pay records, an unsigned copy of her AF 
Form  3070A,  Record  of  Nonjudicial  Punishment  Proceedings  (MSgt 
thru  CMSgt)  along  with  documents  pertaining  to  the  nonjudicial 
punishment  action,  a  copy  of  her  DD  Form  214,  Certificate  of 
Release  or  Discharge  from  Active  Duty, email correspondence and 
documents extracted from her military personnel records.   
 

 

2

The  applicant’s  complete  submission,  with  attachments,  is  at 
Exhibit A.  
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
 
The  applicant  is  a  former  member  of  the  Regular  Air  Force  who 
enlisted on 8 December 1987.  She was progressively promoted to 
the rank of master sergeant, having assumed that grade effective 
and with date of rank with a date of rank of 1 September 2004.   
 
On  19  July  2010,  the  applicant’s  commander  offered  her 
nonjudicial punishment proceedings under Article 15 UCMJ for one 
specification  of  a  violation  of  Article  121,  larceny  and 
wrongful  appropriation.    On  3  June  2010  the  applicant  was 
charged  with  stealing  a  Dane-Elec  16  Gigabyte  Micro  Secure 
Digital  Memory  Card  valued  at  $69.95  from  the  Base  Exchange.  
The  applicant  consulted  counsel,  waived  her  right  to  trial  by 
court-martial  and  accepted  the  Article  15  proceedings.    She 
elected  to  make  a  written  presentation  as  well  as  a  personal 
appearance before the commander.  On 26 July 2010, the commander 
determined  the  applicant  committed  the  alleged  offense.    The 
applicant’s imposed punishment was reduction to the grade of E-6 
(technical sergeant), with a new date of rank of 26 July 2010, 
forfeiture  of  $1,742.00  per  month  for  two  months  of  which,  the 
portion of the forfeitures in excess of $1,742.00 pay per month 
for one month was suspended through 25 January 2011, after which 
time it would be remitted without further action, unless sooner 
vacated and a reprimand.  The applicant appealed the commander’s 
decision.    The  appellate  authority  denied  the  applicant’s 
appeal.  The Article 15 proceedings were reviewed and determined 
to be legally sufficient.   
 
The applicant was released from active duty on 31 January 2011, 
with an honorable characterization of service and credited with 
20 years, 2 months, and 6 days of active duty service.  Her rank 
at  the  time  of  retirement  was  Technical  Sergeant,  E-6,  with  a 
date of rank of 26 July 2010. 
 
On  20  October  2011,  the  Secretary  of  the  Air  Force  found  that 
the  applicant  did  not  serve  satisfactorily  in  any  higher  grade 
and  would  not  be  advanced  in  any  higher  grade  under  the 
provisions of section 8964 of Title 10 United States Code.   
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial.  JAJM states the applicant alleges 
the charge against her were unjust in that her commander refused 
to  accept  her  defense,  and  she  was  steered  into  accepting  the 
Article  15  by  her  defense  counsel.    The  applicant,  however, 
offers  a  fairly  implausible  explanation  for  her  innocence.  

 

3

While her rather elaborate story arguably provides something of 
a  defense  of  the  theft  charge,  the  commander  was  evidently  not 
persuaded,  and  was  likely  more  impressed  by  the  eyewitness  and 
videotaped accounts of the BX security personnel, with no motive 
to  fabricate.    The  applicant  does  not  allege  error  in  how  the 
Article  15  was  processed.    At  the  time  of  the  nonjudicial 
actions, the commander had the best opportunity to evaluate all 
of  the  evidence  in  this  case.    With  that  perspective,  the 
commander  exercised  the  discretion  granted  to  him  by  the 
applicant  when  she  accepted  the  Article  15.    The  legal  review 
processes  showed  the  commander  did  not  act  arbitrarily  or 
capriciously  in  making  his  decision.    A  review  of  the 
applicant’s  AF  Form  3070  indicates  her  rights  were  observed 
throughout  the  process  of  the  nonjudicial  punishment  action.  
The applicant does not make such a compelling argument that the 
Board  should  overturn  the  commander’s  original  decision  on  the 
basis  of  injustice.    The  commander’s  ultimate  decisions  on  the 
Article 15 actions were firmly based on the evidence of the case 
and  the  punishment  decision  was  well  within  the  limits  of  his 
authority  and  discretion.    The  applicant  has  not  shown  a  clear 
error or injustice.    
 
The complete AFLOA/JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C. 
 
AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial.  DPSOE states that AFLOA/JAJM has 
reviewed  this  case  and  found  no  error  or  injustice  and 
recommends  denial  of  the  applicant’s  request  to  remove  the 
Article 15 and restore her retirement pay grade to MSgt.  They 
defer to the AFLOA/JAJM recommendation. 
 
The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit D.  
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
Copies  of  the  Air  Force  evaluations  were  forwarded  to  the 
applicant on 19 June 2012 for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit E).  To date, this office has not received a response.   
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
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 took careful 
notice  of  the  applicant’s  complete  submission  in  support  of  her 
appeal;  however,  we  agree  with  the  opinions  and  the 
recommendations 
primary 

offices 

Force 

of 

of 

the 

Air 

 

4

responsibility  and  adopt  their  rationale  as  the  basis  for  our 
conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error 
or  injustice.    The  applicant’s  contentions  that  the  nonjudicial 
punishment, initiated on 3 June 2010 and imposed on 26 July 2010 
was improper and was actually reprisal for her filing of a 2008 
congressional  complaint  on  her  unit  leadership  are  duly  noted; 
however,  we  do  not  find  the  evidence  provided  is  sufficient  to 
overcome the findings of the AMC/IGQ, which found the applicant’s 
leadership  did  not  reprise  against  her  for  the  congressional 
complaint  but  instead,  her  allegations  led  to  a  commander 
directed  investigation  which  was  conducted  from  7  February  2008 
to 24 March 2008 and approved by the Numbered Air Force commander 
on  4  April  2008.    A  preponderance  of  the  evidence  established 
indicates  that,  during  the  processing  of  the  Article  15  action, 
the applicant was offered every right to which she was entitled.  
The  applicant  has  not  provided  any  evidence  showing  that  the 
imposing  commander  or  the  appellate  authority  abused  their 
discretionary  authority,  that  her  substantial  rights  were 
violated  during  the  processing  of  the  Article  15  punishment,  or 
that the punishment exceeded the maximum authorized by the UCMJ.  
Therefore, in the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, 
we  find  no  basis  to  recommend  granting  her  reinstatement  to 
master sergeant.   
 
4.  The applicant alleges she has been the victim of a reprisal. 
We  note  the  contention  set  forth  by  the  applicant  that  her 
commander  was  aware  that  the  item  she  was  accused  of  stealing 
was  later  recovered  in  the  store;  nevertheless,  he  took 
nonjudicial  punishment  action  against  her  and  imposed  a  harsh 
punishment of reduction in grade and forfeiture of $1,742.00 per 
month  for  two  months  as  a  reprisal  for  her  filing  of  the  2008 
congressional  complaint  on  her  unit  leadership.    We  note  the 
applicant filed a congressional complaint in 2008 alleging that 
the  Medical  Group,  Medical  Operations  Squadron,  and  Mental 
Health  Flight  leadership  engaged  in  behavior  with  racial 
discrimination overtones; there are, or have been, inappropriate 
dual  and  unethical  relationships  between  supervisors  and 
subordinates  in  the  Mental  Health  Flight;  Mental  Health  Flight 
personnel  engaged  in  improper  or  criminal  conduct;    Mental 
Health  Flight  leadership  is  ineffective,  and  as  a  consequence, 
the unit is not mission ready; there has been a “downward spiral 
of morale” and hostility in the Mental Health Flight; and there 
is  abuse  of  command  authority  and  racial  discrimination.    Her 
complaint  resulted  in  a  Commander  Directed  Investigation.    The 
allegations of leadership ineffectiveness and a downward spiral 
of  morale  and  hostility  in  the  Mental  Health  Flight  were 
substantiated; however, the remaining five allegations were not 
substantiated.    The  Numbered  Air  Force  commander  acknowledged 
and  closed  the  investigation  on  4  April  2008.    In  the  summary 
letter  to  the  applicant,  the  investigating  officer  advised  her 
that because the complaint was not an IG specific matter, if she 
was  not  satisfied  with  the  outcome  of  the  investigation  she 
could  request  further  review  through  command  channels  and  she 

 

5

thorough 

and 

the 

appears 

investigation 

also had the right to petition the AFBCMR.  No evidence has been 
provided  to  demonstrate  that  the  applicant  took  further  action 
on the matter.  As such, based on the authority granted to this 
board  pursuant  to  Title  10,  U.S.C.,  Section  1034,  we  reviewed 
the  complete  evidence  of  record  to  determine  whether  the 
applicant has been the victim of reprisal.  We note the timing 
of  the  applicant’s  nonjudicial  punishment,  which  was  the 
consequence  of  her  own  actions,  occurred  over  two  years  after 
the  CDI  was  closed.    Based  on  our  review  of  the  complete 
evidence  of  record  and  the  complete  report,  in  our  view,  the 
AMC/IGQ 
final 
determination  to  close  the  investigation  is  supported  by  the 
applicant’s  apparent  lack  of  follow-up  action.    Therefore,  the 
Board  does  not  find  that  the  applicant  has  been  the  victim  of 
reprisal pursuant to Title 10, U.S.C., Section 1034.   
 
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 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  this  application 
in Executive Session on 20 September 2012, under the provisions 
of AFI 36-2603: 
 
 
 
 
The  following  documentary  evidence  pertaining  to  AFBCMR  Docket 
Number BC-2012-01124 was considered: 
 
    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 March 2012, w/atchs. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records 
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 21 May 2012. 
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 4 June 2012. 
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 June 2012.  
 
 
 
                                     
                                   Panel Chair 

  Panel Chair 
  Member 
  Member 

 
 

 

6