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:

      Mr. Joseph G. Diamond, Panel Chair
      Ms. Kathleen Graham, Member
      Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Member

By a majority vote, the Board voted  to  deny  applicant’s  request.   Ms.
Graham 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 B---, dated 20 Feb 03.
    Exhibit P.  Letter, TSgt H---, dated 21 Feb 03.
    Exhibit Q.  Memorandum, CMSgt M----, dated 26 Mar 03.
    Exhibit R.  Minority Report.



                                             JOSEPH G. DIAMOND
                                             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.




                                        JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                        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.

                                       KATHLEEN F. GRAHAM
                                       Panel Member