SECOND ADDENDUM TO

                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-1997-01581
      INDEX CODE 126.04  111.01  111.05  131.01  107.00
                                               COUNSEL:    Arthur   A.
Schulcz

                                             HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

In the applicant’s request for reconsideration, he  requests  voidance
of the referral Officer Performance Report (OPR) closing  13  Apr  94,
set aside of the Article 15 imposed on him on  13  May  94,  reinstate
award of the Meritorious Service Medal (MSM), promotion  consideration
for major by Special Selection Board (SSB) for the Calendar Year 2000A
(CY00A) Major Central Selection Board, and award of all back  pay  and
monetary damages for all career progression  opportunities  denied  to
him while serving as an officer in the Air Force.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant was the  wing  Protestant  Chaplain  at  McConnell  AFB,
Kansas serving in the grade of captain (Date of Rank: 14 Sep  91).  On
18  Mar  99,  an  enlisted  member’s  spouse  recorded   a   telephone
conversation between herself and the applicant, which implied that the
applicant  had  expressed  interest  in  a  sexual  relationship.  The
applicant was her pastor and had counseled her and her  husband  prior
to this incident. The applicant’s wife spoke to the  rater  about  the
incident. The rater contacted the additional rater, who  then  advised
the wing commander on 20 Mar 94. On 21 Mar 94,  the  additional  rater
met with the rater, the applicant and his  wife.  The  wing  commander
subsequently directed an inquiry. The inquiry officer (IO)  concluded,
in part,  that  the  applicant  violated  professional  boundaries  by
attempting to pursue a sexual relationship with the enlisted  member’s
spouse and that this was an isolated occurrence.  The  IO  recommended
the applicant be given a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) as a  minimum.  The
applicant  received  the  Article  15  and  the  referral   OPR.   The
applicant’s appeal to the Evaluation Report Appeal  Board  (ERAB)  was
denied.

The applicant subsequently filed an AFBCMR appeal to void the  Article
15 and the referral OPR and to reinstate the MSM. The Board denied his
application on 2 Apr 98.  For an accounting of
the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s case  and  the
rationale of the earlier decision by the  Board,  see  the  Record  of
Proceedings (ROP) at Exhibit G.

The applicant’s case was reconsidered  by  the  Board  but  was  again
denied on 26 Aug 99. The Addendum ROP is provided at Exhibit N.

In the latest request for  reconsideration,  the  applicant’s  counsel
provides a statement  from  the  additional  rater,  who  alleges  the
meeting with the reviewer was generated because an  enlisted  member’s
spouse complained  that  the  applicant  solicited  an  unprofessional
relationship with her and she threatened to go to the Air Force Office
of Special Investigations  (OSI).  However,  counsel  asserts  that  a
declaration  provided  by  the  enlisted  member’s  spouse  shows  the
additional rater’s involvement in this case was that  of  an  improper
investigator and manipulator of both her and the situation in order to
injure the applicant.  The  additional  rater  acted  outside  of  his
defined role as a chaplain-pastor. The applicant’s  career  would  not
have  been  irreparably  damaged  had  a  proper  investigation   been
conducted. Counsel’s complete  submission,  with  attachments,  is  at
Exhibit O.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

After  reviewing  the  applicant’s  latest  submission,  we  are   not
persuaded his requests should be granted.  Counsel’s  contentions  and
exhibits, including the statement from  the  enlisted  member’s  wife,
were  carefully  considered.  However,  we  found   unconvincing   her
assertion, at this late date, that the additional rater  “manipulated”
her and her husband into sending a tape to the McConnell legal office.
In  any  event,  based  on  the  recorded  phone   conversation,   the
applicant’s conduct showed poor judgment at best and  a  violation  of
trust at worst. The applicant was not charged  with  having  a  sexual
relationship with the married parishioner/counselee but of  soliciting
one, and he has not overcome the  available  evidence  supporting  the
basis of the actions taken against him. He did not deny  he  committed
the solicitation, and this latest submission does not convince us  the
communications between both chaplains, the applicant and his wife were
privileged. Even if he had so persuaded us, the applicant and his wife
presented information not covered by the privilege when  they  gave  a
statement  to  the  inquiry  officer.   The   applicant   claimed   no
unauthorized  disclosure  of  confidential  information   during   the
original inquiry and presented no evidence that his wife intended  her
request of the rater to have the applicant removed from the  house  to
be confidential. The evidence before us has  not  established  to  our
satisfaction that the additional rater was acting  in  anything  other
than a supervisory capacity, rather than in a confidential capacity as
a pastor/counselor. The applicant chose not to resolve these issues in
a courts-martial, as was his right, and his appeals with  this  entity
have not persuaded us he has been the victim of error or injustice. We
therefore find no compelling basis to  overturn  the  earlier  Boards’
decisions to deny.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The  applicant  be  notified  that  the  evidence  presented  did  not
demonstrate the existence of material error  or  injustice;  that  the
application was denied without a personal  appearance;  and  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  this  application  in
Executive Session on 29 January 2004 under the provisions of  AFI  36-
2603:

                 Ms. Carolyn J. Watkins-Taylor, Panel Chair
                 Mr. John B. Hennessey, Member
                 Ms. Deborah A. Erickson, Member

The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
1997-01581 was considered:

   Exhibit N.  Addendum Record of Proceedings, dated 15 Oct 99,
                                        w/atchs.
   Exhibit O.  Counsel's Letter, dated 28 Nov 03, w/atchs.




                                   CAROLYN J. WATKINS-TAYLOR
                                   Panel Chair