RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-04048
		COUNSEL:  
		HEARING DESIRED:  YES
		
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  Her Letter of Reprimand (LOR), dated 25 Feb 10, be removed 
from her records.

2.  Her referral AF Form 911, Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) 
(MSgt thru CMSgt) rendered for the period 16 Apr 09 through 
6 Apr 10, be voided and removed from her records. 

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

In a 13-page legal brief, the applicant’s counsel presents the 
following major contentions: 

1.  In 2009, she enrolled in an on-line Project Management 
course at Villanova University; she experienced computer 
problems when signing up for and taking the course.  When she 
went to enroll for her next class, the Kunsan Air Base Education 
office informed her that she had received an “F” in the course.  
Believing this to be a mistake, she contacted the university and 
was informed that according to their records, she had not logged 
into the course with her student account.  She told her daughter 
she was upset over the mistake.  Her daughter was concerned that 
the stress over the failing grade would cause further harm to 
her health.  (The applicant had undergone cancer treatment more 
than once).  Her daughter decided to create a letter that 
appeared to be from Villanova University stating they found and 
corrected the mistake and that she had received an “A minus” in 
the course.  Thinking the letter was from Villanova she took it 
to the education office as proof she successfully completed the 
course.  

2.  She was investigated for fraud and issued a LOR despite 
overwhelming evidence she had done nothing wrong.  Her daughter 
admitted she wrote the letter; had someone else sign it 
unbeknownst to her; and provided a statement from the individual 
who assisted her in writing the letter.

3.  She passed a polygraph test; provided other evidence that 
she had taken the course; believed she passed the course and did 
not know her daughter had written the letter; and did not intend 
to provide false information to the Air Force.  Despite the 
evidence, her commander believed she provided a fake letter to 
the education office and allowed the LOR to remain firm.  

4.  Given the fact she had no knowledge of, or role in the 
creation of the letter, her good-faith belief in the letter’s 
authenticity at the time she submitted it to the education 
office; and the severe nature of the reprimand, the LOR is 
unjust.  It is a violation of the requirement under AFI 36-2907, 
Unfavorable Information File (UIF) that “an LOR be based on 
reliable and substantiated information.”  The LOR should be 
removed from her official personnel file and all military 
records.  Similarly, it was improper for her additional rater to 
base negative comments on the unsubstantiated allegation that 
she knowingly provided a false letter.  It is in violation of 
AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation System that 
“comments in a performance report be based on reliable 
information.”  Her additional rater abused his discretion when 
he ignored all the evidence and made negative comments in her 
EPR.  The comments were not based on reliable and substantiated 
information.  Therefore, her EPR should also be removed from her 
official personnel files and all military records.  

In support of her request, the applicant provides a 13-page 
legal brief; copies of letters of support, emails, polygraph 
report and various other documents associated with her 
application. 

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 2 Sep 09, a Commander-Directed Investigation (CDI) was 
conducted and the results substantiated that the applicant 
knowingly provided false information in violation of the Uniform 
Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) to the Maxwell Air Force Base 
Education Office regarding her grade in a Villanova University 
course in an effort to avoid having to repay tuition assistance 
(TA) funds to the Air Force.  

On 27 Jan 10, the Air University Staff Judge Advocate (AU/JA) 
reviewed the Investigating Officer’s (IOs) Report of 
Investigation (ROI) and found it legally sufficient and 
recommended the commander concur with the IO’s finding.  

On 25 Feb 10, the applicant’s commander determined that the 
preponderance of the evidence in the CDI showed that the 
applicant not only made false statements, but also forged the 
letter from Villanova University or enlisted others to 
participate in order to avoid repayment of the TA the Air Force 
expended on her behalf towards a Villanova University online 
course.  For this misconduct, the applicant received a LOR for 
knowingly providing false information to the education office. 
She acknowledged receipt of the LOR.  On 8 Mar 10, the applicant 
provided a rebuttal statement in response to the LOR.  There is 
no evidence the commander acknowledged receipt of her rebuttal 
or of his final decision to maintain the LOR.  

The following is a resume of her EPR history as reflected in the 
Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS):

Close-Out Date	Overall Performance Assessment

10 Dec 10				5
6 Apr 10				4
15 Apr 09				5
15 Apr 08				5
9 Oct 07				5

On 1 Mar 11, the applicant retired from the Air Force in the 
grade of CMSgt after serving 30 years and 13 days of active duty 
service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial of the applicant’s request to 
remove the contested LOR.  DPSIM states that they cannot speak 
to whether or not the commander’s actions were just or not; at 
most they can only discuss if proper procedures were followed in 
the administration of the action.  After careful review, they 
determined the evidence presents only a minor discrepancy which 
had no bearing on the administrative action itself.  

The evidence reflects a potential administrative oversight on 
the applicant’s part.  Specifically, the delay in response to 
the LOR she received on 25 Feb 10, but did not respond to until 
8 Mar 10.  In Accordance With (IAW) AFI 36-2907, the applicant 
had three duty days to submit rebuttal documents for 
consideration by the initiator.  The person who initiated the 
Record of Individual Counseling (RIC), Letter of Counseling 
(LOC), Letter of Admonition (LOA), or LOR had three duty days to 
advise the applicant of their final decision regarding any 
comments submitted by the applicant.  There is no evidence the 
applicant was granted an extension by the commander.  However, 
the discrepancy does not invalidate the commander’s 
actions/authority to administer the LOR.

The complete DPSIM evaluation is at Exhibit E.

AFPC/DPSID reviewed the applicant’s request and determined that 
no action is required by their office.  The applicant’s referral 
EPR, with a close-out date of 6 Apr 10, was never made a matter 
of record; therefore, there is no report to contend.  In 
addition, the EPR provided by the applicant is not a completed 
copy and cannot be accepted for file.  

The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 15 Oct 13, for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit G).  As of this 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 judging 
the merits of the case.  However, we agree with the opinions and 
recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary 
responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our 
conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or 
injustice.  Persuasive evidence has not been provided which 
would lead us to believe that the administrative actions taken 
by her commander were beyond his scope of authority, that he 
abused his discretionary authority in taking those actions, or 
that the actions taken were precipitated by anything other than 
the applicant's own conduct.  We do not find her assertions, in 
and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive in this matter.  
Additionally, as pointed out by DPSID, the referral EPR ending 
6 April 10 was never made a matter of record, as such, this 
portion of her request is moot.  Therefore, in the absence of 
persuasive evidence to the contrary, 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 Docket Number   
BC-2012-04048 in Executive Session on 9 Jan 14, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

					Panel Chair
					Member
					Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 9 Dec 12, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Record.
	Exhibit C.  Commander Directed Investigation (removed). 
	Exhibit D.  Letter, AU/JA, dated 27 Jan 10.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIM, Letter, dated 11 Sep 13
	Exhibit F.  Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 19 Sep 13.
	Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Oct 13, w/atchs.




								  
			                           Panel Chair