[pgyanke]

As a graduate of that fine institution I have a great respect for the honor code and board which enforces it. If the USAF saw fit to overturn the recommendations of the board, I have to assume they saw reason to do so.

Perhaps in this case, it is because we are innocent until proven guilty and she wasn't proven guilty. The board's process was severely flawed in not producing her accuser and an exhonerating witness.

Your calls of "liar" and "I know she did it" without any further knowledge of this case than this article are insulting. Even cadets on an honor board can railroad someone. Since very few are ever overturned by the USAF, and this one was, I have to assume the USAF saw a railroading and righted it.

I am confused, though, as to why she was put in the reserves rather than active duty. My guess is this was done to preclude her hasty withdrawal from her current course of study.

Note: see how I proferred my guess with a hedge? You guys should try it rather than spouting guesses as fact.

[hellinahandcart]

No, this is more like being found guilty but having the conviction overturned on a procedural error. They found her guilty of lying.

Was it her work or not? If it was not her work, her ex-boyfriend's motive for turning her in doesn't matter a bit. In fact it is completely irrelevant. It doesn't make the work her own if it wasn't. That is all that matters.

[hellinahandcart]

Plus, everything listed as a problem with her trial could be termed "mitigating circumstances". To her *guilt*.

[razorback-bert]

I would have liked her to make the statement...It was my work!

The only exonerating evidence that, I can think of, was that it was her work and she could have called a witness to that fact.

Her defense is she was framed, so why didn't she complain that the design submitted wasn't hers?

Oh well, we do need some more facts.