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


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-01793

      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  None

      XXX-XX-XXXX      HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The applicant requests reconsideration of the following previously  denied
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 (Exhibit S).

On 8 Aug 03, the applicant submitted a statement from  another  Air  Force
member  stationed  at  Keflavik  during  the  timeframe  of  his  incident
recounting a similar negative encounter he had with Naval Security.  By  a
majority vote, the Board determined that this evidence  was  new  but  not
relevant and did not meet the criteria for reconsideration.   Accordingly,
the applicant’s request was denied (Exhibit T).

In an undated letter faxed on 3  Nov  03,  the  applicant  again  requests
reconsideration of his case.  In support of  his  request  he  provides  a
letter from the Group Building Manager providing details of  the  incident
in which the applicant was involved.  The Group  Building  Manager  opines
that  the  incident  got  completely  out  of  hand  due  to  a  lack   of
communication between the applicant and Naval security personnel  (Exhibit
U).

_________________________________________________________________

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.   The  latest
statement submitted by the applicant  does  not  differ  significantly  in
scope from previous statements considered by the Board.  Additionally, the
applicant offers no rationale for why this evidence was not presented with
his initial appeal or with his previous requests for  reconsideration.   A
majority of the Board does not find a sufficient basis in the new evidence
to conclude that the actions of the applicant’s commander  were  arbitrary
or capricious and thus should be overturned.  Therefore, in the absence of
compelling evidence to the contrary, the majority of the  Board  does  not
find it appropriate to grant the relief requested.

_________________________________________________________________

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 14 Jan 04, 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  requests.   Ms.
Graham voted to grant the applicant’s  requests  and  did  not  desire  to
submit  a  minority  report.   The  following  documentary  evidence   was
considered:

    Exhibit S.  Second Addendum Record of Proceedings, dated 7 May
                03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit T.  Letter, Applicant, undated, w/atch.
    Exhibit U.  Letter, Applicant, undated, w/atch.




                                             JOSEPH G. DIAMOND
                                             Panel Chair
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD
                                        FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY
RECORDS (AFBCMR)

SUBJECT:  AFBCMR Application of XXXXXXXXXX, 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.  However, I agree with the minority
member that a degree of relief is warranted.

      The applicant’s record clearly shows that the incident at the
heart of this case was not characteristic of his normal conduct and
performance.  He has doggedly persisted in his quest for relief from
the Board, to include asking his commander to again review the
circumstances of his case.  While the commander has chosen not to
change his view of the incident, I note that his first sergeant
believes that the punishment was too severe under the circumstances.
Additionally, the applicant has submitted several letters attesting to
a pattern of unprofessional conduct by Navy security personnel at the
base of occurrence.  In that regard, I note that the minority member
in this case originally voted to deny, but has been persuaded by the
additional evidence that a measure of relief is warranted.  Given the
total circumstances of this case, I, too, believe enough doubt exists
to warrant giving the applicant some relief.  Of the requests made by
the applicant, I believe it is appropriate to set aside the Article 15
and to remove the EPR from his record.  However, I do not believe that
it would be appropriate to award him a decoration as he has requested.
 Accordingly, it is my decision that the Article 15 imposed on him on
 26 January 2001 be set aside and the EPR rendered for the period 7
November through 6 November 2001 be declared void and removed from his
record.

      Please advise the applicant accordingly.




                                        JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                        Director
                                        Air Force Review Boards Agency
AFBCMR 00-02913


MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

      Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force
Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of
Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed
that:

      The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to XXXXXXXXXX, XXX-XX-XXXX, be corrected to show that:

            a.  The nonjudicial punishment imposed under the provision of
Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, initiated on 16 January
2001, and imposed on 26 January 2001, be, and hereby is, declared void
and expunged from his records, and all rights, privileges and property of
which he may have been deprived be restored.

            b.  The Enlisted Performance Report (AB thru TSgt), AF Form
910, rendered for the period 7 November 2000 through 6 November 2001, be,
and hereby is, declared void and removed from his records.

      It is further directed that he be provided supplemental
consideration for promotion to the grade of master sergeant (E-7)
beginning with cycle 01E7.

      If selected for promotion to master sergeant by supplemental
consideration, he be provided any additional supplemental consideration
required as a result of that selection.

      If AFPC discovers any adverse factors during or subsequent to
supplemental consideration that are separate and apart, and unrelated to
the issues involved in this application that would have rendered the
applicant ineligible for the promotion, such information will be
documented and presented to the Board for a final determination on the
individual’s qualifications for the promotion.

      If supplemental promotion consideration results in the selection
for promotion to the higher grade, immediately after such promotion the
records shall be corrected to show that he was promoted to the higher
grade on the date of rank established by the supplemental promotion and
that he is entitled to all pay, allowances, and benefits of such grade as
of that date.


            JOE G. LINEBERGER
            Director
            Air Force Review Boards Agency