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


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  97-01034
                 INDEX CODE:  135

                 COUNSEL:  MICHAEL C. PIERCE

                 HEARING DESIRED:  YES
_________________________________________________________________

RESUME OF CASE:

On               , the Board considered an  application  from  subject
applicant.  Applicant requested that  he  be  credited  with  two  (2)
additional years of Reserve service to be eligible to receive  Reserve
retired pay at age 60.  The Board, after  reviewing  the  evidence  of
record  and  applicant’s  submission,   concluded   that   there   was
insufficient relevant evidence presented to demonstrate the  existence
of probable error or injustice.  The Board noted that at the  time  of
applicant’s discharge, he completed 20 years of satisfactory  service.
However, the law requires that to receive retired pay at age  60,  the
last six years of service must be served in a  Reserve  component  and
the applicant did not satisfy this requirement.  He only completed the
last four years in a Reserve component.  Since there was no  provision
of law that permits receipt of retired pay unless this requirement has
been met, the Board agreed with the Air Force evaluation and found  no
basis to recommend granting the relief sought.  The  applicant’s  case
was denied on        .

A copy of the Record of Proceedings is attached at Exhibit F.

Applicant, with counsel, has submitted an  application,  dated       ,
requesting  reconsideration  of  his  earlier  request  to  grant   an
additional two years of Reserve service  to  be  eligible  to  receive
Reserve retired pay at age 60.  The applicant  bases  his  request  on
inadequate representation of counsel, an unjust medical discharge  and
failure of retainability and sanctuary.

Applicant’s request, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Acting Director, Health Services Individual Reserve  Programs,  HQ
ARPC/SG, reviewed the applicant’s request and states that:

    a.  Applicant  was  found  medically  disqualified        for  the
diagnosis of Diabetes requiring the use of Insulin in accordance  with
AFI 48-123.

    b.  HQ ARPC/SG requested the discharge process be placed  on  hold
pending receipt of medical documentation confirming the diagnosis  was
under control with use of oral medications.

    c.  HQ  ARPC/SG  received  and  reviewed   the   updated   medical
information in    of   .  The data showed the  diagnosis  was  not  in
control so the case was referred for discharge processing.

    d.  The case was not entered into the Assignment  Limitation  Code
“C” program because the medications  prescribed  had  not  effectively
controlled  the  applicant’s  diabetes  leaving  him   at   risk   for
complications.

    e.  The case was forwarded to the Physical Disqualification Review
Board to ensure the correct authority reviewed the case and  used  the
appropriate guidance for decision making.  The board agreed  with  the
medical staff findings.

There was no new information submitted to support  the  assertion  the
medical review was unjust.  The use of the Assignment Limitation  Code
“C” program is done at the discretion of the reviewing  officials  and
is based on the information provided for review.  The best interest of
the individual is balanced against the needs of the Air  Force.   They
recommend the request for reconsideration be denied.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the  applicant  on
   and his counsel on     , for review and response  within  30  days.
Additional updated medical documentation and counsel’s  response  were
received by the AFBCMR which are attached at Exhibits J and K.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to  demonstrate  the
existence of probable error or  injustice.   Applicant  is  requesting
reconsideration of his earlier request  to  grant  an  additional  two
years of Reserve service to be eligible to receive retired pay at  age
60.  We have reviewed the additional contentions and do not  find  the
assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to  override
the rationale provided by the Air Force.  As stated  in  our  previous
findings, this Board concluded that although at the time of  discharge
the applicant had completed 20  years  of  satisfactory  service,  the
requirement of law that the last six years of service must  be  served
in a Reserve component had not been met.  We find no  new  information
submitted to support  the  applicant’s  assertions  that  the  medical
review  and  discharge  processing  were  improper  or  unjust.    The
applicant has also failed to establish  that  he  received  inadequate
representation prior to his discharge.  We therefore  agree  with  the
recommendations of HQ ARPC/SG and adopt the rationale expressed as the
basis for our decision that the applicant has failed  to  sustain  his
burden  that  he  has  suffered  either  an  error  or  an  injustice.
Therefore, we find no  compelling  basis  to  recommend  granting  the
relief sought.

_______________________________________________________________________
_____________________

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 4 June, 2 August and 17 August  1999,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603.

                  Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Frederick R. Beaman III, Member
                  Dr. Gerald B. Kauvar, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit F.  ROP, dated 27 Feb 98.
   Exhibit G.  DD Fm 149, dated 16 Jun 98, w/atchs.
   Exhibit H.  Letter, HQ ARPC/SG, dated 7 Jan 99.
   Exhibit I.  Letters, AFBCMR, dated 1 Feb & 24 Feb 99.
   Exhibit J.  Add’l Medical Documentation, dated 15 Apr 99.
   Exhibit K.  Counsel’s Letter, dated 18 Jun 99.




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair