RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: 96-01013
                 INDEX CODE:   108.03  108.04
                 COUNSEL: James L. Stanton

                 HEARING DESIRED:  Yes
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.    The Line of Duty (LOD) determination be  changed  from  “Not  in
LOD, Due to Own Misconduct” to “In LOD.”

2.    He be awarded a disability retirement consistent with a  60%  or
higher disability rating.

            Or, in the alternative:

             The  Physical  Evaluation  Board  (PEB)  reevaluate   his
eligibility for retroactive medical retirement from the Air Force with
benefits.

3.    All official records, including the DD Form 214, be corrected to
reflect the decision of the AFBCMR.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Air Force officials acted arbitrarily, capriciously, and  contrary  to
law in not following the mandates of AFR 35-67, and further failed  to
act in a prompt manner to correct the  mistake  when  statements  from
eyewitnesses corroborating his version of the accident were  provided.
This delay precluded him from being medically  retired  from  the  Air
Force even though a PEB rated him with a 60% disability.

      - An LOD determination on his status was made, not  at  or  near
the time of injury, but  over  15  months  later  when  an  orthopedic
surgeon made an informal finding of “In LOD” with a caveat  of  “Based
on Avail. Record.”
      - He clearly incurred a severe injury while  serving  on  active
duty which resulted in his being found  medically  unfit  with  a  60%
disability rating. The only issue is whether his  physical  disability
was incurred in LOD.
      - The mere fact  that  he  drove  his  vehicle  after  consuming
several alcoholic drinks and later was involved in  an  accident  that
was caused by another driver’s clear violation of  driving  laws  does
not constitute willful neglect, recklessness, wanton disregard,  gross
negligence or misconduct of any nature  by  the  applicant.  The  same
result would have occurred even if he had not consumed any alcohol and
had been totally sober at the time  of  the  accident.  The  proximate
cause of the accident was the negligent conduct of  the  other  driver
and not him.

In support, applicant’s counsel provides a brief, documents pertaining
to the  accident  and  the  LOD  determination  process,  and  witness
statements. One witness contends he was driving behind  the  applicant
when another car pulled in front of the applicant,  who  swerved  into
the left lane to avoid it.

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 25 April  1986.  During
the period in question, he was an airfield  management  specialist  in
the  middle  of  out-processing  from  the  379th  Operations  Support
Squadron (OSS), Wurtsmith AFB, MI, to the 55th OSS, Offutt AFB, NE.

On 13 December 1992 at 0120, while returning from Delta  College  with
two passengers, applicant was involved in a  vehicular  accident  near
the intersection of Bay and Pierce roads, Kochville  Township,  MI.  A
State of Michigan Traffic Crash Report states, in part, the following:

            “Veh #1 [applicant’s] was SB on Bay Rd, Veh #2 was NB. Veh
#2 pulled off roadway and stopped do [sic] to seeing headlights coming
towards them in NB lane. Veh #1 then struck Veh #2 on rear driverside.
Veh #2 [sic] then sent SB off roadway, striking a wooden fence, cement
traffic island, then a telephone pole flipping upside  down  where  it
ended in a field.”

The Report reflects that it was dark, raining, and the roads were wet.
The officer who wrote the report also indicated that the  speed  limit
was 55 miles per hour (mph), but  was  not  posted;  however,  in  the
narrative he states the speed limit was  35  mph.  The  applicant  had
indicated he was driving 40 mph and had replied “Yes” to the questions
of had he been drinking and could blood be drawn at the  hospital  for
alcohol testing. The officer added that the applicant  had  stated  he
didn’t know the road and thought he saw lights in front of him, then a
gas station, and that was all. The officer indicated a front passenger
in applicant’s car advised that he thought the [applicant’s  car]  was
in the wrong lane but was not sure, he just saw lights. [There  is  no
mention in the Report by anyone of the applicant attempting  to  avoid
hitting a car that had pulled  out  in  front  of  him.]  A  State  of
Michigan Uniform Vehicle Law citation  cites  the  applicant  for  the
misdemeanor of operating  a  vehicle  while  under  the  influence  of
liquor.

Applicant was hospitalized at St. Luke’s  Hospital.  A  blood  alcohol
test reflected a blood alcohol content of 0.17%, which was  above  the
state legal limit of 0.10%.  He  suffered  laceration  and  damage  to
tendons in right arm and injury to the brachial plexus  [a  collection
of large nerve trunks that pass from the lower part  of  the  cervical
spine and upper part of the thoracic spine  down  the  arm  and  which
control muscles in and receive sensations from the arm and  hand].  He
was placed on convalescent leave by Wurtsmith Hospital officials  from
23 December 1992 to 23 January 1993, which was later extended.

An LOD determination was not made at this time.

Physical therapy did not resolve  applicant’s  weakness  and  loss  of
sensation in his right arm. On 8 December  1993,  he  underwent  nerve
graft surgery of the right brachial plexus at a civilian hospital.

An LOD Determination, AF  Form  348,  dated  16  March  1994,  by  the
military orthopedic surgeon indicated that an LOD was  not  done,  the
applicant’s injury was likely  to  be  permanent,  he  was  under  the
influence of  alcohol,  and  civilian  records  were  unavailable  for
review. The surgeon  recommended  a  finding  of  “In  LOD”  based  on
available records. The commander  subsequently  recommended  a  formal
investigation and appointed an investigating officer.

An LOD Report  of  Investigation  (ROI),  dated  13  May  1994,  found
applicant’s injury not to be in LOD due to own  misconduct,  and  that
his misconduct was the proximate cause of his injuries.

A 23 June  1994  legal  review  of  the  ROI  reflected  that  an  LOD
determination was not made at the time of  the  accident  because  the
applicant’s medical care was provided at a civilian hospital and  paid
for by his private insurance. Care was not provided at  the  Wurtsmith
Base Hospital where a medical officer would  probably  have  initiated
the  LOD  process.  In  addition,  the  accident  occurred  while  the
applicant was out-processing from Wurtsmith. Since  applicant  had  no
duties to perform, he was placed in “casual” status. The Acting  Staff
Judge Advocate (SJA) opined it was clear from the  evidence  that  the
applicant was intoxicated  at  the  time  of  the  accident  and  that
voluntary  intoxication  prior  to  driving  is  strong  evidence   of
misconduct. This,  coupled  with  applicant’s  decision  to  transport
passengers after dark on wet roads  rises  to  the  level  of  willful
neglect. Recommendation was that the determination be “Not in LOD  due
to own misconduct.”

The appointing authority and reviewing authority concurred  on  19 May
and 23 June 1994, respectively.

On 25 October 1994, subsequent to his  request,  applicant’s  civilian
counsel was provided a copy of the LOD ROI.

On 8 December 1994, counsel requested that the  LOD  determination  be
reinvestigated due to a lack of certain information and the length  of
time between the accident and when the LOD investigation  was  finally
performed. Counsel also disagreed with the conclusion that applicant’s
conduct constituted “willful neglect.”

A Medical Evaluation Board convened on 13 December 1994. After finding
applicant’s injury had resulted in marked atrophy and dysfunction, his
case was referred to an Informal PEB.

An Informal PEB convened on 29 December  1994.  Diagnosis  was:  Right
upper  extremity  brachial  plexus  injury  13  Dec  92,  non-dominant
extremity, with severe residual dysfunction. The board found applicant
unfit with a disability rating of 60%, but that his injury was not  in
LOD and was the result of intentional misconduct.  Recommendation  was
that he be discharged under Title 10, USC, 1207, with no  compensation
for his injury. Applicant indicated he disagreed with the findings and
requested a formal PEB.

A Formal PEB convened on 30 January 1995 and  confirmed  the  findings
and  recommendation  of  the  Informal  PEB.  Applicant  indicated  he
disagreed with the findings and would submit a rebuttal.

On 10  February  1995,  applicant’s  PEB  legal  counsel  submitted  a
rebuttal, indicating that the LOD issue had not yet been  conclusively
settled and that applicant’s injury should  be  found  “In  LOD”  with
temporary or permanent retirement at 60%.

On 14  February  1995,  applicant’s  civilian  counsel  forwarded  new
statements [the three provided with this appeal] for inclusion in  his
request for reinvestigation of the LOD determination.

On 24 February 1995, the Secretary of the  Air  Force,  through  AFPC,
confirmed the finding of “Not in LOD” and directed  the  applicant  be
discharged under Title 10, USC, 1207.

On 8 March  1995,  subsequent  to  local  JA  review,  the  55th  Wing
commander  recommended  that  the  12th  Air  Force   commander   deny
applicant’s  counsel’s  request  for  a  reinvestigation  of  the  LOD
determination. However, on 23 March 1995, the SJA recommended that the
LOD determination be reinvestigated because  new  evidence  [documents
establishing a posted speed limit higher than the speed applicant  was
traveling and witness statements] added to the question of the  extent
and effects of the intoxication on the accident sequence, as  well  as
opened the possibility  of  an  intervening  cause  [the  car  causing
applicant to begin his swerve] breaking the causal  chain  leading  to
the injury.

In a letter dated 3 April 1995, the  12th  Air  Force  vice  commander
returned the LOD determination to the 55th Wing  for  reinvestigation,
indicating that the supplemental material received had been  found  to
be sufficient to disclose a chance  of  error  in  the  determination.
However, in a letter also dated 3 April 1995, the 12th Air  Force  SJA
advised the 55th Wing SJA that, due to the demands of  processing  the
request and confusion surrounding applicant’s actual  discharge  date,
the request was not finalized prior to his separation.  The  12th  Air
Force SJA recommended that the package be turned over to the applicant
for possible use as an AFBCMR action.

As a result, on 3 April 1995 the applicant was honorably discharged in
the grade of  sergeant  under  the  provisions  of  AFI  36-3208,  for
Disability, not in LOD, with a reenlistment  eligibility  code  of  2Q
(Medically retired or discharged). He had 8 years, 11  months,  and  9
days of active duty.

[Also see ADDITIONAL STATEMENT OF FACTS - LOD REINVESTIGATION sections
for summations  of  two  new  LOD  investigations  and  determinations
requested by the Board through the AFBCMR Staff on 30 October 1997 and
26 June 1998.]

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Physical Disability Division, HQ  AFPC/DPPD,  reviewed  the
appeal  and  determined  that  applicant’s  case   was   appropriately
processed and accurately rated within the disability community.   When
the appointing and reviewing  authority  found  that  the  applicant’s
injuries were the result of his own misconduct, the PEB  appropriately
recommended his separation under the  provisions  of  Title  10,  USC,
1207, which does not entitle him to any benefits. Therefore, since the
applicant was appropriately processed and rated within the  disability
system, the Chief recommends  denial  while  deferring  to  the  legal
authorities regarding a change to the LOD determination.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

The Staff Judge Advocate, HQ AFPC/JA, also evaluated this  application
and itemizes the legal standards set forth in  AFR 35-67 for making an
LOD determination in the applicant’s case. The  investigating  officer
(IO) was fully briefed on the legal standards and, after completing  a
thorough investigation was of the opinion that the applicant  was  not
in the LOD at the  time  of  the  accident.  His  findings  are  fully
supported by the evidence and found to be  legally  sufficient  by  at
least three levels of legal review. The foundation of the  applicant’s
case rests  on  three  sworn  statements  provided  to  his  attorney.
Essentially, the applicant’s position is that his intoxication was not
a contributing factor to the accident.  His  legal  position  and  his
contention to this Board is that anyone in his  position  (intoxicated
or not) would have tried to avoid hitting the vehicle that pulled  out
in front of him by swerving as he did, and anyone (intoxicated or not)
would have hit that icy patch as  he  did.  Therefore,  the  proximate
cause of his injury was the unavoidable accident  caused  not  by  his
drunken state but rather by the careless driver who pulled in front of
him. He has provided evidence that weather conditions were  such  that
ice could have been present on the road that night. One of  the  sworn
statements corroborate his claim that  there  was  ice  on  the  road.
Probably the most important  evidence  is  the  police  report,  which
states the roads were wet and  that  applicant’s  car  hit  the  other
vehicle prior to reaching Pierce Road intersection.  The  report  also
indicates that the collision with the other vehicle took place a tenth
of a mile from that intersection. The other driver indicated  she  was
driving northbound on Bay Road and had already passed the Pierce  Road
intersection when she first saw oncoming headlights  in  her  lane  of
traffic. She had enough time to slow down, pull her vehicle  from  the
road, and park it on the shoulder  before  her  car  was  hit  by  the
applicant. It is unclear from the police report what the  speed  limit
was on that stretch of road. In any event, it is impossible  that  the
applicant’s version of the events leading to the accident  could  have
happened as he stated. The woman’s vehicle was not moved after he  hit
her. It was two  football  fields  from  the  intersection  where  the
alleged car pulled out in front of the applicant. His car  had  to  be
well beyond that point since the woman had time to  slow  her  vehicle
down and then pull it to the  shoulder  of  the  road  before  it  was
struck. At that distance, driving at 40 mph,  the  applicant,  had  he
been sober, could have easily stopped his car to avoid hitting the car
that pulled in front of him. There is no mention in the police  report
of a car pulling out in front of the applicant’s vehicle which  caused
him to swerve his car into the other lane of traffic in order to avoid
hitting it. Both the applicant  and  his  front  seat  passenger  were
interviewed at the scene of the accident by  the  police  officer  and
neither one mentioned the other car. The preponderance of the credible
evidence strongly suggests that it  was  the  applicant’s  intoxicated
state which caused him to lose control of his vehicle. Most certainly,
his decision to drive after  drinking  amounted  to  willful  neglect.
Therefore, denial is recommended.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Counsel reviewed the Air Force opinions and contends that  the  entire
thrust of this application is to show that the LOD IO did not have all
of the facts at the time he made his recommendation. The  whole  point
of making the request for reinvestigation of the LOD investigation and
submitting supplemental information  in  the  form  of  statements  of
witnesses was to show that the original decision was in error and  the
investigation needed to be reopened. The 12th Air Force vice commander
concurred that the LOD needed  to  be  reinvestigated;  however,  this
never actually occurred. Counsel disagrees that the police  report  is
the  most  important  evidence  in  this  case.  He  points  out   the
inaccuracies in the report.  On the diagram the 40’  distance  appears
much longer than the 1/10 mile drawn by the officer.  This  1/10  mile
figure is difficult to verify because  there  is  no  way  of  knowing
whether Vehicle #2 was moved after being struck  by  applicant’s  car.
Counsel argues that the best piece of evidence is the  statement  from
the eye witness who was driving directly behind the applicant and  who
corroborates applicant’s assertion that he swerved to avoid a car that
had cut him off. This witness is unbiased because  he  was  neither  a
victim nor did he know any of the parties involved. It seems  unlikely
that the applicant’s car, which was traveling at about 40  mph,  would
have traveled 1/10 of a mile after striking  [Vehicle  #2]  and  still
have enough force to flip over after striking a traffic island  and  a
light pole. The more plausible explanation  is  that  just  after  the
vehicle that was struck crossed the intersection,  the  other  vehicle
pulled out in front of the applicant causing him to  swerve  into  the
northbound lane where he struck the left rear part of the  approaching
vehicle and continued across the  intersection  where  he  struck  the
traffic island and pole and flipped over. Applicant’s conduct comes no
where near being reckless nor constituting a wanton disregard for  the
well-being of himself or someone else. The facts show he  was  driving
within the speed  limit  when  he  was  suddenly  confronted  with  an
unexpected  emergency.  His  actions  were  the  same  as  that  of  a
completely sober person, which was that he swerved  to  avoid  hitting
the car that pulled out in front of him and  unfortunately  sideswiped
an approaching car. The true proximate cause of the accident  was  not
his blood alcohol level but the car that pulled out and caused him  to
swerve so that he struck an icy patch and lost control of his vehicle.
Therefore, counsel requests that the applicant’s injury be  found  “In
LOD.”

Counsel’s complete response is attached at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL STATEMENT OF FACTS - LOD REINVESTIGATION:

In Executive Session on 30 October 1997, the Board deferred  rendering
a  final  decision  on  this  case  and  requested  that  a  new   LOD
investigation  be  conducted.   This  was  based,  in  part,  on   the
statements provided by the applicant and the fact that,  although  the
12th Air Force vice commander had  directed  a  reinvestigation  on  3
April 1995, it was never done.

Therefore, pursuant to the AFBCMR’s 14 November 1997 request, the 55th
Wing directed an LOD reinvestigation on 20  March  1998.  On  26 March
1998, the IO completed the  reinvestigation  and  concluded  that  the
applicant’s misconduct was the proximate cause of his injuries.  A  10
April 1998 legal review concurred with the findings.  The  Appointing,
Reviewing  and  Approving  Authorities   also   concurred   that   the
applicant’s injuries were not LOD but were due to his own misconduct.

Complete copies of the “Non in the LOD”  investigative  report,  legal
review and determination are at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF LOD REINVESTIGATION:

On 14 May 1998,  a  complete  copy  of  Exhibit  G  was  forwarded  to
applicant’s counsel. Counsel provided a rebuttal which raised  several
questions regarding the validity of the new LOD.   In  particular,  he
contended that the new  LOD  should  have  been  conducted  under  the
auspices of AFR 35-67, the governing directive  at  the  time  of  the
accident, rather than in accordance with AFI 36-2910. This resulted in
the IO applying the  wrong  definitions,  particularly  of  unfitness.
Counsel also asserted that the new LOD was not conducted in compliance
with  either  directive,  i.e.,  required  statements  and  documents,
certain parts of the evidence were  ignored,  the  applicant  was  not
interviewed as required, etc.

A copy of the complete rebuttal, with attachments, is at Exhibit I.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL STATEMENT OF FACTS - LOD REINVESTIGATION:

On 26 June 1998, the AFBCMR Staff requested additional legal review of
counsel’s contentions regarding the LOD reinvestigation. The 12th  Air
Force SJA forwarded the request to the 55th Wing SJA, who concluded on
24 August 1998 that a third LOD investigation should be done.

On 16 October 1998, the IO concluded his report.  He  found  that  the
applicant’s alcohol abuse was sufficient to be under the influence  of
alcohol in violation  of  Michigan  law  and  constitutes  misconduct.
However, there was insufficient mental impairment from the alcohol  to
preclude normal precautions by his driving sensibly for the diminished
road conditions at a legal speed limit with his seatbelt fastened. The
IO also detected a discrepancy in the 1992 accident  report  filed  by
the Saginaw County Deputy Sheriff in that the posted  speed  limit  on
Bay Road at the time was, in fact, 55 mph, rather  than  35  mph.  The
preponderance of evidence indicated that the proximate  cause  of  the
accident was not by the applicant’s own misconduct but by  the  driver
that entered Bay Road from Pierce Road in violation of the applicant’s
right-of-way. The  IO  determined  that  the  applicant’s  intoxicated
condition did not make him “sensibly impaired” within the  meaning  of
AFR 35-67 and his injuries occurred “in the LOD.”

A legal review by the 55th Wing SJA on 29 October 1998 indicated  that
the difference in this third LOD investigation was the depth of  facts
identified by the IO and the applicability of the AFR 35-67 definition
of intoxication that differs from the current  standard.   Information
provided by witnesses demonstrated the  applicant  drove  his  vehicle
without any indicators that he was drunk and that, but for the  cutoff
vehicle, the accident would not have occurred.  The  police  corrected
the error made with respect to the speed limit on Bay  Road,  and  the
evidence  indicates  the  applicant  was  not  speeding  through   the
intersection. The SJA recommended that the approving authority  concur
with the IO’s “in the LOD” findings.

The Appointing, Reviewing and Approving Authorities concurred with the
IO’s findings. Official and legal review was completed and the  report
released on 5 November 1998.

A complete copy of the “In the LOD” investigation,  with  attachments,
is at Exhibit J.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF “IN THE LOD” REPORT:

On 5 February 1999, the AFBCMR Staff received the “in the LOD”  report
and findings, which was forwarded to  the  applicant’s  counsel  on  3
March 1999.

Counsel concurs with the in the LOD finding. He does not  request  any
further action to correct the “slight irregularity” in the IO’s use of
the term “Misconduct” in the in the LOD report.

A complete copy of counsel’s response is provided at Exhibit L.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.    The applicant has exhausted all remedies  provided  by  existing
law or regulations.

2.    The application was timely filed.

3.    Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the  existence  of  probable  error  or  injustice.   Based   on   the
applicability of the AFR 35-67  definition  of  intoxication  and  the
additional facts identified by the IO of the third LOD  investigation,
there was insufficient mental impairment from the alcohol to  preclude
the  applicant  from  taking  normal  driving  precautions   for   the
diminished road conditions at a legal speed limit. The proximate cause
of the accident was the road conditions and the  reckless  driver  who
cut off the applicant, not his drinking and driving. Therefore,  after
a  careful  review  of  all  the  documentation,  we  agree  that  the
applicant’s injuries were in the LOD and not the  result  of  his  own
misconduct.  We note that the Formal PEB found the injuries  sustained
by the  applicant  as  a  result  of  the  13 December  1992  accident
warranted a disability rating  of  60%.   As  the  applicant  and  his
counsel have requested a rating of at  least  60%,  we  recommend  the
applicant’s protracted ordeal be concluded in his favor by  correcting
his records to reflect his unfitting injuries were  in  the  LOD,  his
name was placed on the Permanent Disability Retirement List and he was
medically retired with a rating of 60%.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the  Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that:

      a.  The  injuries  he  sustained  in  a  vehicular  accident  on
13 December 1992 were found to be in the line of  duty  (LOD),  rather
than not in the LOD due to his own misconduct, and that all  documents
pertaining thereto be amended to reflect his injuries were in the LOD.

      b.  On 2 April 1995, he was found unfit to perform the duties of
his office, rank, grade or rating by  reason  of  physical  disability
incurred while entitled to receive basic pay; that  the  diagnosis  in
his case is right upper extremity brachial plexus injury  13  December
1992,  non-dominant  extremity,  with  severe  residual   dysfunction,
disability  rating  60%,  VA  code  8513;  that  the  disability   was
permanent; that the disability was not due to  intentional  misconduct
or willful neglect; that the disability  was  not  incurred  during  a
period of unauthorized absence; that the disability was  not  incurred
during a period of national emergency; and that the disability was not
received in line of duty as a direct result of armed conflict.

      c.  He was not discharged from active duty on 3 April  1995  for
disability, not in the LOD, but on 4 April 1995, his name  was  placed
on the Permanent Disability Retired List.
_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 30 October  1997  and  9  June  1999,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                  Mr. Benedict A. Kausal IV, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Gregory H. Petkoff, Member
                  Dr. Gerald B. Kauvar, Member

All members  voted  to  correct  the  records,  as  recommended.   The
following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 5 Apr 96, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPD, dated 23 May 96.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/JA, dated 13 Dec 96.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 30 Dec 96.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, Counsel, dated 28 Feb 97.
   Exhibit G.  “Not in the LOD” Investigation
   Exhibit H.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 14 May 98.
   Exhibit I.  Letter, Counsel, dated 12 Jun 98.
   Exhibit J.  “In the LOD Investigation,” w/atchs.
   Exhibit K.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 3 Mar 99.
   Exhibit L.  Letter, Counsel, dated 30 Mar 99.




                                   BENEDICT A. KAUSAL IV
                                   Panel Chair



AFBCMR 96-01013



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 APPLICANT, be corrected to show that:

           a.  The injuries he sustained in a vehicular accident on
13 December 1992 were found to be in the line of duty (LOD), rather
than not in the LOD due to his own misconduct, and that all documents
pertaining thereto be amended to reflect his injuries were in the LOD.

           b.  On 2 April 1995, he was found unfit to perform the
duties of his office, rank, grade or rating by reason of physical
disability incurred while entitled to receive basic pay; that the
diagnosis in his case is right upper extremity brachial plexus injury
13 December 1992, non-dominant extremity, with severe residual
dysfunction, disability rating 60%, VA code 8513; that the disability
was permanent; that the disability was not due to intentional
misconduct or willful neglect; that the disability was not incurred
during a period of unauthorized absence; that the disability was not
incurred during a period of national emergency; and that the
disability was not received in line of duty as a direct result of
armed conflict.

           c.  He was not discharged from active duty on 3 April 1995
for disability, not in the LOD, but on 4 April 1995, his name was
placed on the Permanent Disability Retired List.





   JOE G. LINEBERGER

   Director

   Air Force Review Boards Agency

Attachment:
AFBCMR Letter for DFAS