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


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  85-02290
            INDEX CODE:  110.02, 108.00
      APPLICANT  COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His discharge be changed to honorable with medical conditions.

___________________________________________________________________

RESUME OF THE CASE:

On 30 July 1985, the  Board  considered  and  denied  a  request  by  the
applicant that his general  (under  honorable  conditions)  discharge  be
upgraded to honorable (see AFBCMR 85-02290, with Exhibits A  through  G).
Subsequent to that time, on  three  occasions,  the  applicant  requested
reconsideration of his case due to his medical conditions (Exhibit H).

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The only issues considered while he was in the service  were  psychiatric
conditions.  Because of an injury to his skull, he had brain syndrome and
physical  conditions  (spine  and  back).   These  conditions  have  only
recently become known to him.

In support of his application, he referred to the records  pertaining  to
his treatment and compensation by  the  Department  of  Veterans  Affairs
(DVA).  His most recent submission and his letters to  senior  Air  Force
officials are at Exhibit I.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 12 November  1963  and
served on active duty until  9  November  1967,  when  he  was  honorably
released from active duty in the grade of airman first  class  (E-4)  and
transferred to the Air Force Reserve by reason of expiration of  term  of
obligated service.  He had served 3 years,  11  months  and  28  days  on
active duty in the continental United States.

The applicant contracted a second enlistment in the Regular Air Force  on
25 July 1969 in the grade of sergeant (E-4).  Following an assignment  to
Carswell AFB, Texas from 1 August 1969 to 6 June 1970, he was  reassigned
to duties in Thailand, remaining there until  on  or  about  16  February
1971, when he was transferred to Plattsburgh AFB, New York.  During  this
period of service, he received two Airman Performance Reports (APRs),  in
which the overall evaluations were “7s.”

On 6 August 1970, nonjudicial punishment under Article 15,  Uniform  Code
of Military Justice (UCMJ) was imposed on the applicant for  the  offense
of AWOL from 22 July to 1 August 1970.  He was reduced in grade to airman
first class (E-3) (suspended), and, was ordered to  forfeit  $133.00  for
two months and to be restricted to his base for 30  days.   For  breaking
restriction on 12 August 1970, the suspension of his reduction  in  grade
to airman first class was vacated and he reverted to the grade of  airman
first class.  For the offense of AWOL from 12 August to 26  August  1970,
the applicant was further reduced in grade to airman (E-2),  and  he  was
ordered to forfeit $96.00 per month for two months and was restricted  to
the limits of his base for 60 days.

Following  his  transfer  to  Plattsburgh  AFB,  on  2  March  1971,  the
applicant’s duty status was changed from present for duty to AWOL.  On  8
March 1971, he was apprehended  by  civil  authorities  and  returned  to
military control.  Nonjudicial punishment was imposed on him on 18  March
1971 consisting of a suspended reduction in grade to airman basic  (E-1).
Pursuant to his plea, on 27 March 1971, he was found guilty  in  a  civil
court of public intoxication.  For his failure to report to his place  of
duty on 19 April 1971, the suspension of his reduction in grade to airman
basic was vacated on 22 April 1991.  For being drunk  and  disorderly  in
quarters on 21 May 1971, the applicant received Article 15 punishment  on
27 May 1971, consisting of 12 hours of additional duty.

On 10 June 1971, the  applicant  was  notified  that  his  commander  was
initiating separation proceedings under AFM 39-12 by reason of  unfitness
because of frequent involvement of a discreditable nature  with  military
and civil authorities.  The applicant was advised of his  rights  in  the
matter and that a general discharge would  be  recommended.   On  9  July
1971, he waived his rights to an administrative discharge  board  hearing
and submitted a statement for consideration by the  discharge  authority.
On 11 June 1971, the applicant underwent a physical examination  for  the
purpose of separation.  He indicated that the state  of  his  health  was
“good” and denied the existence of any nervous problem(s).  He was  found
medically qualified for administrative separation.  On 21 June 1971,  his
commander referred him to mental health authorities for evaluation.  In a
Certificate of Psychiatric Evaluation dated 2 July 1971, it was indicated
that the  diagnosis  in  the  applicant’s  case  was  “alcoholism”  --  a
character and behavior disorder.

In a legal review of the discharge case file,  dated  20  July  1971,  an
assistant staff judge advocate assigned to the  staff  of  the  discharge
authority found the file was legally sufficient.  On  23 July  1971,  the
discharge  authority  approved  the   recommended   separation,   without
suspension of the discharge, and directed that the applicant be furnished
a General Discharge certificate.  On  30 July  1971,  the  applicant  was
discharged under honorable conditions, having served 2 years and  6  days
of his last enlistment on active duty.  He was credited with 6 years  and
4 days of total active service.  A reenlistment eligibility code of  RE-2
was assigned.

Available  information  extracted  from   documents   prepared   by   DVA
authorities indicates that the applicant filed  his  original  claim  for
compensation on 5 October 1971.  The initial rating was accomplished on 7
January 1972 with diagnoses  of  bronchial  asthma,  with  a  compensable
rating of 10%; hearing loss,  ratable  at  zero  percent;  and  tinnitus,
ratable at zero percent.  Rating  action  for  a  nervous  condition  and
hypertension was deferred.   On  17  February  1972,  the  applicant  was
referred for evaluation by a Chief of Psychiatry.   After  reviewing  the
records and interviewing the applicant, in a  report  dated  22  February
1972, it was indicated that the impression  was  “Schizophrenia,  chronic
undifferentiated type, manifested by  bizarre  somatic  complaints,  mild
thought disorder, mild paranoid ideation, inappropriate flat affect,  and
obsessive thinking.”  On 10 March 1972, the rating for  bronchial  asthma
was increased to 30% and the applicant was granted a  compensable  rating
of 10% for hypertension.  In addition to the foregoing, on 24 March 1972,
he was granted service-connection and a compensable rating of 10% for the
condition, anxiety neurosis.  The rating for hypertension was reduced  to
zero percent.  The combined compensable rating for these  conditions  was
40%.  The applicant’s claim was reopened and, in a rating decision  dated
9 August  1972,  he  was  granted  service-connection  for  schizophrenic
reaction,  rated  at  100%  disabling,  in  addition  to   his   previous
disabilities.  The compensable rating for schizophrenia  was  reduced  to
70%,  for  a  total  combined  compensable   rating   of   80%.    In   a
neuropsychiatric examination dated 12 June 1973, it  was  indicated  that
the impression of the applicant’s  condition  was  “paranoid  personality
with no indication of psychosis at the  present  time.”   This  physician
stated that the applicant was borderline schizophrenic and that he  would
eventually be schizophrenic “if he is not one now.”  On 6 February  1974,
his combined rating was increased to 100% due to unemployability.

The 100% disability rating  for  the  applicant’s  psychiatric  condition
remains in effect to the  current  date.   Evidence  in  the  DVA  record
indicates that at some time in 1984,  he  was  declared  incompetent  and
that, with the exception of a five-month period  in  1989,  an  appointed
conservator has managed his income  and  estate.   Over  the  years,  the
applicant has filed a number of unsuccessful DVA appeals  contesting  the
competency findings in his case.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  AFBCMR  Chief  Medical  Consultant  reviewed  the  application   and
recommended denial.  After  summarizing  the  facts  of  the  case,  this
physician stated that there is no evidence that  the  applicant  suffered
from a psychiatric disorder that  should  have  been  considered  in  the
disability evaluation system at the time of his administrative separation
in 1971.  While some traits of impending derangement were noted,  it  was
not until some time later that his schizophrenia  became  manifest.   The
Medical Consultant is of the opinion that action and disposition in  this
case were proper and  in  compliance  with  Air  Force  directives  which
implement the law (see Exhibit J).

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Medical Consultant’s advisory opinion was forwarded to  the
applicant on 5 April 1999 for review and comment.  As of  this  date,  no
response has been received by this office.

___________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  After reviewing the evidence presented, we do not find it  sufficient
to support findings that the  applicant’s  discharge  in  July  1971  was
improper or contrary to the provisions of directive under  which  it  was
effected.  We have interpreted the applicant’s statements  as  assertions
that because of injuries and conditions existing prior to the termination
of his service, he should have been  discharged  or  retired  because  of
physical disability. We are not persuaded that this was the case.

2.  The  reasons  discharge  proceedings  were  initiated   against   the
applicant are well documented in the record.  It appears  that  most,  if
not all, of the applicant’s misbehaviors were based on overindulgence  in
alcoholic beverages and he was diagnosed as an alcoholic  at  that  time.
Despite  his  problems  with  alcohol,  his  superiors  rated  his   duty
performance during this last enlistment as “excellent,”  “superior,”  and
“exceptional.”

3.  It should be noted that then, as now, an  individual’s  condition  at
the time of separation or final disposition governs whether  or  not  the
member is referred for disability processing.  In order  to  be  referred
for disability processing, the member’s fitness for worldwide  duty  must
be seen as questionable.  Decisions of this nature are based on  accepted
medical principles.  We  are  aware  that  it  is  a  generally  accepted
principle there is a progression to conditions such as  the  applicant’s,
i.e., before the condition manifests to a degree of severity by  which  a
firm diagnosis may be made, some symptoms may  occur  which,  in  and  of
themselves, do not lead medical authorities to question the  individual’s
ability to function in society.  Therefore, while in retrospect,  it  may
be determined that symptoms of the  condition  were  evident  before  the
disease reaches a severity which would allow for a definitive  diagnosis,
the exact nature and seriousness of the disease cannot be diagnosed  with
any certainty.

4.  On 11 June 1971, the applicant underwent a  physical  examination  in
connection with his discharge processing.  None of the  conditions  cited
by the applicant in his current application  were  noted  at  that  time.
Shortly thereafter, he was referred for psychiatric  evaluation  for  the
same purpose.  As a result of both examinations, he was  found  medically
qualified  for  worldwide  duty  or  separation.    Notwithstanding   the
subsequent course of his illness, we have seen nothing  in  the  evidence
which would cause us to believe that the  above-cited  findings  made  in
June/July 1971 were erroneous or contrary to accepted medical  principles
and the symptoms the applicant exhibited at that time.  Our perception in
this matter is buttressed by the differences  of  opinion  in  the  DVA’s
assessments of the applicant’s condition and the ratings assigned  during
the first year or so following his separation.

5.  In view of all the above, we are unable to conclude that the point at
which the applicant’s condition  became  unfitting  occurred  before  his
separation, thereby warranting approval of the requested relief.  Whether
the course  of  applicant’s  illness  was  gradually  progressive  and/or
triggered by the trauma associated with his separation combined with  his
personal problems, we are unconvinced that the evaluation of his case  by
his commanders and military medical authorities was improper or not based
on accepted medical principles.   In  this  regard,  we  agree  with  the
opinion of the Medical Consultant and believe the actions  by  Air  Force
authorities in 1971 were appropriate, the  applicant’s  condition  became
unfitting and ratable after his separation, and, as the law requires,  he
is now and has been properly compensated by  the  DVA  for  his  service-
connected conditions.

6.  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 not favorably considered.

___________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate
the  existence  of  probable  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 June 22, 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Panel Chair
      Mr. Timothy A. Beyland, Member
      Mr. Joseph G. Diamond, Member

The following additional documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit H.  Letters, AFBCMR, dated Feb 4, 1992, Mar 9, 1993,
                and Apr 22, 1993, with applicant’s submissions.
    Exhibit I.  DD Form 149, dated Jul 8, 1997, with attachments,
                and applicant’s letters, dated July 17, 1997,
                July 25, 1997, Oct 11, 1997, Feb 8, 1998, Feb 24,
                1998, Apr 8, 1998, Jul 12, 1998, Mar 1, 1999, and
                Mar 2, 1999.
    Exhibit J.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated Apr 2, 1999.
    Exhibit K.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated Apr 5, 1999.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Panel Chair