SECOND ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-01793

	XXXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  None

	XXX-XX-XXXX	HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

In the applicant’s request for reconsideration, he provides four letters of character reference in support of the following original requests:

	  a.  The Article 15 he received on 26 Jan 01 be set aside and removed from his records.

	  b.  The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered on him for the period 7 Nov 00 through 6 Nov 01 be voided and removed from his records.

	  c.  He be awarded as a minimum an Air Force Commendation Medal for his assignment to Naval Air Station Keflavik.

_________________________________________________________________

RESUME OF CASE:

On 5 Nov 02, the AFBCMR considered and denied the applicant’s requests indicated above.  On 7 Jan 03, the Board reconsidered the applicant’s appeal after he submitted five letters of character reference.  After reviewing the applicant’s complete evidence of record to include the new evidence, the Board again denied the applicant’s requests.

On 12 Feb 03, the applicant requested reconsideration of his case for a second time and submitted two new statements of support, one verifying the amount of alcohol they observed the applicant consuming and the other from an individual giving the details of an incident he had with Navy Security.  On 26 Mar 03, the applicant submitted an additional letter of support attesting to the bad reputation of the Naval Security personnel and questioning the accuracy of the details regarding the incident involving the applicant (Exhibits N thru Q).

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

The majority of the Board again finds insufficient evidence that the applicant has been the victim of an error or injustice.  While the new statements provided by the applicant attempt to discredit the Naval Security forces at Keflavik, they do not provide sufficient evidence that Naval Security was guilty of impropriety in the handling of the applicant’s case.  Furthermore, they fail to establish that the actions taken by the applicant’s commander were arbitrary or capricious.  The majority notes that one of the individuals indicates in his statement that he “cannot say what exactly happened the night” the applicant was arrested.  He also indicates that he does not know why the commander decided to punish the applicant by Article 15.  Although he states that he personally observed Naval Security personnel overreact, lie, and abuse their authority, he does not provide any concrete evidence of these allegations.  While one of the other statements provided by the applicant gives the details of a negative encounter the author had with Naval Security personnel, the majority of the Board does not believe that you can draw an automatic inference that they were also guilty of misconduct in the applicant’s case.  For example, it is not indicated if the same individuals were on duty in both incidents.  Finally, the applicant’s persistence has caused us to review the evidence in this case very closely.  However, a majority of the Board simply does not find sufficient evidence of an error or injustice to grant the relief requested in this case.

_________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:

A majority of the Board finds insufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommends the application be denied.

__________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered Docket Number 02-01793 in Executive Session on 28 March 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

By a majority vote, the Board voted to deny applicant’s request.  Ms. 	 voted to grant the applicant’s requests and has attached a minority report at Exhibit R.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit M.  Addendum Record of Proceedings, dated 28 Jan 03,
                w/atchs.
    Exhibit N.  Memorandum, Applicant, dated 12 Feb 03.
    Exhibit O.  Memorandum, SSgt 	, dated 20 Feb 03.
    Exhibit P.  Letter, TSgt 	, dated 21 Feb 03.
    Exhibit Q.  Memorandum, CMSgt 	, dated 26 Mar 03.
    Exhibit R.  Minority Report.

								
								Panel Chair

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD
                                        FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)

SUBJECT:  AFBCMR Application of XXXXXXXXXXX, XXX-XX-XXXX

	I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the recommendation of the Board members.  A majority found that applicant had not provided sufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommended the case be denied.  I concur with that finding and their conclusion that relief is not warranted.  Accordingly, I accept their recommendation that the application be denied.

	Please advise the applicant accordingly.

							
							Director
							Air Force Review Boards Agency

MEMORANDUM FOR	THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR) 
SUBJECT:	AFBCMR Application of XXXXXXXXXX, XXX-XX-XXXX
On 5 November 2002, the Board considered and denied an application for correction of military records pertaining to subject applicant.  Subsequently additional information was reviewed in January and the majority again voted to deny.  The applicant has again provided additional information and requests that we reconsider our earlier decision.  The majority of the Board has again voted to deny the applicant’s appeal.  I respectfully, but strongly disagree with their recommendation.
I commend MSgt 	‘s tenacity and commitment to preserve his integrity.  The situation outlined and the support references he has provided are consistent.  They are supported by a near perfect record marred only by an Article 15, a punishment that was excessive for a first time offense and inconsistent with the recommendations made by his First Sergeant.  In addition, there is a consistent trail of injustice attributed to Navy, Air Force and racial tensions at Keflavik NAS.   Additional evidence of this was provided in the most recent reconsideration package.  While the letters of support do not provide specific details and evidence regarding the applicant’s incident, I do believe they provide strong evidence of a pattern of inappropriate conduct on the part of Naval Security personnel.  Although there is insufficient evidence to soundly question the action and motive of the applicant’s commander, I believe he erred in his handling of the applicant’s case.  This leads me to the conclusion that the applicant’s requests should be granted.       

Panel Member