RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                   DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00350	
	   	   		    COUNSEL:  NONE
     	   			    HEARING DESIRED:  YES	

________________________________________________________________ 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  Her referral Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) for the 
period of 27 Jan 12 through 26 Jan 13 be removed from her 
records.  (Administratively Corrected)

2.  Her Promotion Sequence Number (PSN) to the grade of Staff 
Sergeant (SSgt, E-5) be reinstated.        

________________________________________________________________ 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was harassed and sexually assaulted.  

She was labeled as a troublemaker and singled out for relatively 
small or unsubstantiated misconduct to cover up the real 
problems, sexual harassment and assault.  The Article 15 and 
other punishments were used against her as a way to cover up 
what was really going on.  She repeatedly complained about the 
aggressive environment but her complaints only aggravated the 
situation and a lot of the markdowns on her EPR and punishment 
during this period were the result of reprisal.  

In support of her requests, she provides a chronological 
sequence of events, a letter from her wing commander 
disapproving the recommendation for administrative discharge and 
an Air Force Times article. 

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

________________________________________________________________ 

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 27 May 08, the applicant entered active duty.

According to a letter from the 99th Air Base Wing (ABW) 
Commander dated 4 Dec 13, a Commander Directed Investigation 
(CDI) (unrelated to this case) was initiated on 4 Sep 
12 following allegations of sexual harassment in the applicant’s 
unit.  The investigation did not substantiate sexual harassment; 
however, it did highlight a lack of accountability and failure 
of leadership. The squadron commander took administrative action 
for those involved, directed additional sexual assault awareness 
and equal opportunity training, and reiterated the Air Force's 
zero tolerance policy.

According to the 99 ABW Commander’s letter dated 4 Dec 13, her 
commander notified her on 15 Jan 13 that he was recommending her 
discharge from the Air Force for a series of minor disciplinary 
infractions, to include the following:

a.  Record of Individual Counseling (RIC), dated 14 Apr 10, for 
disobeying an order regarding the required uniform of the day.   

b.  Letter of Reprimand (LOR), undated, from her immediate 
supervisor for driving 33 Miles Per Hour (MPH) in a 15 MPH zone 
and talking on a cell phone while driving a Government Owned 
Vehicle (GOV) on/about 9 Aug 10.          
      
c.  Letter of Counseling (LOC), dated l Mar 12, from her work 
center supervisor for failure to go on 28 Feb 12.  

d.  LOR, dated 8 Mar 12, from her unit first sergeant for 
failure to go on 8 Mar 12.  
      
e.  LOC, dated 11 Apr 12, from the noncommissioned officer in 
charge of supply operations for suspicion of physically 
assaulting her partner and threatening to inflict bodily harm on 
6 Mar 12.    

f.  LOR, Unfavorable Information File (UIF) and Control Roster 
(CR) action on 13 Sep 12 from her squadron commander for causing 
a disturbance requiring police response at Manch Elementary 
School on 7 Sep 12.

g.  Article 15, dated 3 Jan 13, from her squadron commander for 
dereliction of duty, specifically for leaving her place of duty 
and leaving the facility unsecured on 12 Dec 12.  

According to the 99 ABW Commander’s letter dated 4 Dec 13, in a 
letter dated 18 Jan 13, she responded to the commander's 
discharge recommendation and made a series of allegations 
including sexual harassment in the workplace.  The discharge was 
put on hold pending an investigation.  Additionally, on or about 
1 Feb 13, the applicant requested and was granted an alternate 
duty location outside of the 99th Logistics Readiness Squadron 
(LRS) and was detailed to the 99 ABW Safety Office.  

According to the 99 ABW Commander’s letter dated 4 Dec 13, she 
was issued a written no-contact order on 8 Feb 13 by the First 
Sergeant to stay away from another member of the 99 LRS per a 
request from Security Forces investigators because the applicant 
was discussing the open investigation with the said person.  
Additionally, the applicant was verbally counseled by the First 
Sergeant of the 99 LRS to stay out of the squadron based on the 
amount of time she was spending outside of her place of duty at 
the Safety Office, the ongoing investigation, as well as her 
statements that she felt threatened, uncomfortable, and unsafe 
in the squadron.

According to the 99 ABW Commander’s letter dated 4 Dec 13, she 
was arrested on 23 Jun 13 for domestic assault of her partner.  
She was issued a no-contact order by the Safety Office following 
the domestic assault incident with her partner.  She was issued 
an LOR on 28 Jun 13 for the incident.

According to the 99 ABW Commander’s letter dated 4 Dec 13, the 
applicant in a letter to her Congressman asserted her behavior 
was due to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and depression.  

On 3 Oct 13, the discharge authority disapproved the 
administrative discharge recommendation In Accordance With (IAW) 
AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, paragraph 
5.56, and directed the applicant be retained.  

In a letter dated 4 Oct 13, the USAF Warfare Center Commander  
replied to her Congressman stating that the applicant’s 
allegations were taken seriously and carefully investigated.  He 
was continuing to review the case to ensure he is satisfied that 
no further action is required.   

Per Special Order Number ACD-01658, dated 17 Apr 14, she was 
placed on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL) effective 
28 Apr 14, in the grade of Senior Airman (SrA, E-4) with a 
compensable percentage for physical disability of 70 percent.  

Her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active 
Duty, reflects she was retired effective 28 Apr 14 with a 
narrative reason for separation of “Retirement Disability, 
Temporary, Enhanced.”  She served 5 years, 11 months and 1 day 
on active duty.  

In an email dated 5 Feb 14, SAF/IG states there is no evidence 
anywhere in the system of records that would suggest that there 
was reprisal.

________________________________________________________________ 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSID states that under the provisions of AFI 36-2603, Air 
Force Board for Correction of Military Records, the applicant’s 
request that her referral EPR ending 26 Jan 13, has been 
resolved through pertinent administrative procedures which do 
not require referral to the Air Force Board for Correction of 
Military Records.

The Board is the highest level of administrative appeal within 
the Department of the Air Force.  The Board will not consider a 
case until all avenues of administrative relief have been 
exhausted.  DPSID reviewed the application and determined the 
first avenue of relief would be through the Evaluation Report 
Appeals Board (ERAB).  Therefore, her application was forwarded 
to the ERAB and the request to void the EPR rendered for the 
period of 27 Jan 12 through 26 Jan 13 was approved.  The 
referral EPR will be replaced with an AF Form 77, Letter of 
Evaluation, stating “Not rated for the above period.  Report was 
removed by Order of the Chief of Staff, USAF.”   

The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial of the applicant’s request for 
reinstatement of her PSN to the grade of SSgt.  She was 
considered and tentatively selected for promotion to the grade 
of SSgt during Cycle 12E5 and was given a PSN of 6618.0 which 
would have incremented on 1 Feb 13; however, she was placed on 
the control roster in Sep 12 and her line number was removed IAW 
AFI 36-2502, Airman Promotion/Demotion Programs, Table 1.1., 
Rule 5.

The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit D.  

________________________________________________________________ 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 28 Jul 14, copies of the Air Force evaluations were provided 
to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit 
E).  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 to warrant 
reinstating her PSN to the grade of SSgt.   We note the 
applicant alleges that she has been the victim of reprisal and 
has not been afforded full protection under the Whistleblower 
Protection Act (10 U.S.C. § 1034).  However, the available 
evidence of record reflects the reasons for her placement on the 
control roster which resulted in her losing her line number.  
Based upon our own independent review of the available evidence, 
the applicant has not established the actions by her superiors 
to place her on the control roster were an act of reprisal.    
We note that officers of the government, like other public 
officials, discharge their duties correctly, lawfully, and in 
good faith.  The applicant has not provided sufficient evidence 
the commander’s actions were arbitrary or capricious.  The 
control roster actions which resulted in her losing her line 
number appears to comply with the governing AFI and we find no 
evidence to indicate that the decision to place her on the 
control roster was inappropriate.  As such, we agree with the 
opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary 
responsibility (DPSOE) and adopt the rationale expressed as the 
basis for our decision the applicant has failed to sustain her 
burden of having suffered either an error or injustice.  
Therefore, aside from the administrative correction to remove 
her referral EPR for the period ending 26 Jan 13 from her 
record, we find no basis to recommend granting the additional 
relief sought in this application. 

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 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 
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-
2014-00350 in Executive Session on 28 Aug 14, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

       , Panel Chair
       , Member
       , Member

 
The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number 
BC-2014-00350 was considered: 

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 22 Jan 14, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.       
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 21 Apr 14.       
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 2 May 14. 
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Jul 14.