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

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-01169-2
            INDEX NUMBER:  126.00; 111.00
      XXXXXXXXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  Yes


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Article 15 imposed on him on 18 Mar 04 be set aside.

The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered on him for  the  period
19 Mar 03 through 18 Mar 04 be declared  void  and  removed  from  his
records.

The Letter of Reprimand he received, dated 17 Feb 04 be declared  void
and removed from his records.

_________________________________________________________________

RESUME OF CASE:

On 18 May 06, the Board considered and denied  the  applicant’s  above
stated requests (Exhibit J).   In  a  letter  dated  26  May  06,  the
applicant  provided   as   additional   evidence   for   the   Board’s
consideration a copy of a TDY order, dated 11 Apr 03, which he  states
shows  that  his  contested   EPR   failed   to   document   all   his
accomplishments (Exhibit K).  At the time the  applicant’s  additional
evidence was received, the Board had already rendered a  decision  and
the applicant’s case had already been closed.  The additional evidence
was considered a request for reconsideration.  Prior to processing  of
the reconsideration, the applicant submitted an undated  DD  Form  149
with an attachment, dated 8 Oct 06, requesting reconsideration of  his
case and providing additional evidence  (Exhibit  L).   The  applicant
provides as new evidence the results of  a  polygraph  examination  he
contracted  for  and  an  affidavit.   The  applicant   recounts   the
contentions made in his initial application and provides  argument  on
the admissibility of the results  of  his  polygraph.   The  applicant
provides a total of 13 reasons he feels the  Board  should  grant  his
requests.  In an undated letter, the applicant provides a  copy  of  a
letter he sent to the Deputy Staff Judge Advocate involved in his case
and an unofficial copy of the transcript of the airman he contends was
not punished for breaking the same no contact order  he  was  punished
for (Exhibit M).

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Pursuant to the Board’s request,  AFLOA/JAJM  provided  an  additional
evaluation of  the  applicant’s  request  for  reconsideration.   JAJM
addressed the applicant’s request to set  aside  the  Article  15  and
recommends the applicant’s request be denied.

AFLOA/JAJM notes they addressed the  applicant’s  arguments  in  their
previous advisory and that their recommendation remains unchanged.  In
his submission, the applicant contends he has provided new evidence in
the form of an  affidavit  signed  by  him  and  the  answer  to  four
polygraph questions.  However, nothing in the applicant’s  submissions
is actually new factual evidence.  Everything continues to be the same
uncorroborated personal subjective version of the events in  which  he
admits no fault.  Furthermore, most of the facts  that  the  applicant
provides are unsubstantiated and the applicant provides absolutely  no
evidence to corroborate them.  There is no evidence of impropriety  in
the  manner  in  which  the  applicant’s   commander   conducted   the
nonjudicial punishment proceedings and the applicant was afforded  all
due process and appellate rights accorded  by  law.   The  Article  15
action underwent a full legal review at two separate  levels  and  was
found to be legally sufficient.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit N.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In an undated letter, applicant  responds  that  the  JAJM  evaluation
provides nothing to refute  the  evidence  submitted.   The  applicant
asserts what he considers to be false statements provided by JAJM  and
provides what he considers  to  be  the  truth  of  the  matter.   The
applicant also provides argument, with examples of case  law,  on  the
admissibility of polygraph examinations.  The applicant states that he
requests a  personal  appearance  before  the  Board  to  discuss  the
evidence he has provided.

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit P.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  Insufficient newly discovered relevant evidence has been presented
to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.   After  reviewing
the  complete  evidence  of  record,  including  the  applicant’s  new
submissions,  we  agree  with  the  opinion  and   recommendation   of
AFLOA/JAJM and adopt its  rationale  as  the  primary  basis  for  our
conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an  error  or
injustice.  Notwithstanding the applicant’s rebuttal  to  AFLOA/JAJM’s
advisory opinion,  we  do  not  find  the  results  of  the  polygraph
examination  he  voluntarily  undertook  sufficiently  compelling   to
reverse the Board’s previous determination.  As such, we find no basis
to recommend  granting  the  relief  sought  in  this  reconsideration
request.

2.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not  been
shown  that  a  personal  appearance  with  or  without  counsel  will
materially  add  to  our  understanding  of   the   issues   involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is again not favorably considered


_________________________________________________________________

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 Docket  Number  BC-2005-
01169 in Executive Session on 24 January 2007, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
      Mr. Gregory A. Parker, Member
      Mr. Elwood C. Lewis, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit J.  ROP, dated 8 Jun 06, w/atchs.
    Exhibit K.  Memorandum, Applicant, dated 26 May 06, w/atchs.
    Exhibit L.  Memorandum, Applicant, dated 8 Oct 06, w/atchs.
    Exhibit M.  Memorandum, Applicant, undated, w/atchs.
    Exhibit N.  Memorandum, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 29 Nov 06.
    Exhibit O.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 4 Dec 06.
    Exhibit P.  Memorandum, Applicant, undated, w atchs.




                                   MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
                                   Panel Chair