RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 				DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02847

 						COUNSEL:   

						HEARING DESIRED:  YES 



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her records be corrected to reflect the following relief based on 
being the victim of reprisal pursuant to DODD 7050.06, Military 
Whistleblower Protection, dated 23 July 2007, and 10 U.S.C. § 
1034:

	Her administrative demotion to the grade of Staff Sergeant 
(SSgt, E-5) be rescinded and she be reinstated to the grade of 
Technical Sergeant (TSgt, E-6). 

	All adverse actions following the administrative demotion be 
removed from her records.  


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Her commander took adverse actions against her after she contacted 
the 75th Air Base Wing Equal Opportunity office (75 ABW/EO) in 
November 2013 and the 552nd Air Control Wing Inspector General 
(552 ACW/IG) in January 2014.  

On 10 February 2014, she was notified that she was being demoted 
to the grade of SSgt for failing to fulfill the responsibilities 
of a Noncommissioned Officer (NCO) as outlined in AFI 36-2618, The 
Enlisted Force Structure.  She submitted exculpatory evidence 
which proved the allegations and actions taken against her were 
arbitrary and capricious.  

It is clear she is the victim of reprisal and actions of the 
commander represent abuse of authority.  She has utilized several 
avenues to address this issue.  

In support of her requests, she provides copies of the 
administrative demotion and other various documents associated 
with her requests.  

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 14 March 2001, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force. 

According to a letter dated 24 February 2014, the 552nd Air 
Control Group Commander (552 ACG/CC) approved the administrative 
demotion of the applicant to the grade of SSgt for failure to 
fulfill NCO responsibilities.

According to AF Form 3070, Record of Nonjudicial Punishment 
Proceedings (AB thru TSgt), dated 26 February 2014, the applicant 
received an Article 15 for violation of Article 90, Uniform Code 
of Military Justice (UCMJ) for failure to obey a lawful order.  
She was demoted to the grade of Senior Airman (SrA, E-4) with a 
new Date of Rank (DOR) of 10 March 2014 and forfeiture of $200.00, 
suspended through 9 September 2014.  

On 31 March 2015, the applicant was honorably discharged in the 
grade of SrA with a narrative reason for separation of “Misconduct 
(minor infractions).”  She was credited with 14 years and 17 days 
of active duty service. 

In an e-mail dated 1 June 2015, SAF/IG advised that the reprisal 
investigation regarding the applicant’s Article 15, Letter of 
Reprimand (LOR), Unfavorable Information File (UIF) and 
reinstatement of rank was on-going. 

The AFBCMR is the highest administrative level of appeal in the 
Air Force.  AFI 36-2603, AFBCMR, paragraph 4.7.3 requires that if 
an applicant has not exhausted all available effective 
administrative remedies, the application will be denied by the 
Board on that basis. 

In a letter dated 2 June 2015, SAF/MRBR provided the applicant an 
opportunity to request that her case be administratively closed 
until such time as her case is resolved through the appropriate IG 
authority and requested she respond within 30 days (Exhibit G).  
As of this date, this office has not received a response.


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial of the request that her 
administrative demotion to the grade of SSgt be rescinded and she 
be reinstated to the grade of TSgt.  The commander acted within 
his authority to demote the applicant IAW AFI 36-2502, Airman 
Promotion/Demotion Programs, paragraph 6.3.4 (failure to fulfill 
NCO responsibilities).  

The applicant was notified on 11 February 2014 of her commander’s 
intent to recommend she be demoted to the rank of SSgt for failure 
to fulfill NCO responsibilities.  After considering the 
applicant’s appeal, several character statements and the Staff 
Judge Advocate’s legal review, the demotion authority approved the 
demotion action on 24 February 2014.

On 3 March 2014, the applicant received an Article 15 for failure 
to obey a lawful order from a superior commissioned officer.  It 
is the opinion of DPSOE that the demotion action taken against the 
applicant was procedurally correct and there is no evidence of any 
irregularities or that the case was mishandled in any way.  A 
legal review conducted by the 75 ABW/JA found the file legally 
sufficient as the actions taken were permissible administrative 
actions taken at the discretion of the applicant’s 
supervisors/commanders. 

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial of the applicant’s request to remove 
the Non-judicial Punishment (NJP) and defers the reprisal 
recommendation to the IG for determination.  

DPSIM cannot determine if the commander’s actions were just or not 
and can only identify whether or not the commander followed proper 
procedures.  After careful review, DPSIM determined the commander 
followed the proper procedures in the administration of punishment 
IAW AFI 51-202, Non-Judicial Punishment.  

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIM evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial of the applicant’s request to remove 
the NJP.  After careful review of the record, JAJM cannot find any 
clear injustice, error or good cause to reverse or otherwise 
change the commander’s decisions with respect to the NJP. 

NJP is authorized by Article 15, UCMJ (10 U.S.C. § 815) and 
governed by the Manual for Courts-Martial (Part V) and AFI 51-202.  
This procedure permits commanders to dispose of certain offenses 
without trial by court-martial unless the service member objects.  
Service members first must be notified by their commanders of the 
nature of the charged offenses, the evidence supporting the 
offenses and the commander’s intent to impose the punishment.  The 
member may consult with a defense counsel to determine whether to 
accept the NJP or demand trial by court-martial.  Accepting the 
proceedings is simply a choice of forum; it is not an admission of 
guilt.  NJP is also not, when imposed, a criminal conviction.

On 26 February 2014, the applicant was offered NJP for violation 
of two lawful orders from a superior commissioned officer, in 
violation of Article 90, UCMJ.  After consulting with an attorney, 
the applicant accepted the NJP and submitted written statements.  
On 10 March 2014, the 729th Air Control Squadron Commander (729 
ACS/CC) found that she committed the offenses and punished her 
with a reduction to the grade of SrA, forfeiture of $200.00 pay, 
suspended and a reprimand.  The applicant decided to appeal and 
submitted matters on behalf of her appeal.  The appeal was denied 
by both the 729 ACS/CC and the 552 ACG/CC.  The applicant was 
administratively demoted for the underlying issues that led to the 
no contact orders, but she still chose to disobey her commander 
and make contact with both airmen.  There are no procedural errors 
that prejudiced the applicant in any way with regard to the NJP 
process.  She was afforded all of her due process rights and the 
NJP was properly executed.  The punishment was well within the 
range of permissible punishments.

A complete copy of the AFLOA/JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit E. 


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 3 June 2015 for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit H).  As of this date, no response has been received by 
this office.


THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has not 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.  In this respect, 
we note this Board is the highest level of administrative appeal 
within the Air Force.  As such, an applicant must first exhaust 
all available avenues of administrative relief provided by 
existing law or regulations prior to seeking relief before this 
Board, as required by the governing Air Force Instruction.  We 
note that the applicant has an IG case pending and in view of 
this, we find that consideration of the applicant’s appeal by this 
Board is not appropriate at this time.  Therefore, the applicant 
is advised that if she is not successful in obtaining the relief 
she seeks through available administrative channels, she may then 
consider resubmitting her appeal to this Board.

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 she has not exhausted all available 
avenues of administrative relief prior to submitting her 
application to the AFBCMR; and the application will only be 
reconsidered upon exhausting all subordinate avenues of 
administrative relief.   


The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number 
BC-2014-02847 in Executive Session on 8 July 2015 under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	  Panel Chair
	  Member
	  Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 14 July 2014, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 26 September 2014.
	Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 24 November 2014.
	Exhibit E.  Memorandum, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 12 February 2015.
	Exhibit F.  E-mail, SAF/IG, dated 1 June 2015 (Withdrawn).
	Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MRBR dated 2 June 2015.
	Exhibit H.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 June 2015.