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


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  91-00285
            INDEX CODES:  110.03, 124.04

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

By amendment, under 10 USC 1034, all personnel  records,  particularly
those referring to any  psychiatric  diagnosis  made  by  nonqualified
individuals (those other than licensed mental health  care  providers)
be expunged from his records; and, he be reinstated to the  Air  Force
with back pay, allowances, leave, benefits and promotions.

_________________________________________________________________

RESUME OF THE CASE:

The applicant is a former Regular Air Force officer who was  honorably
discharged on 6 Jun 87 and tendered an indefinite term appointment  as
a Reserve of the Air Force on 7 June 87.  He was discharged  from  the
Air Force Reserve in 1993 for nonparticipation.

On  29  Mar  91,  the  Board  considered  and  denied  an  application
pertaining to  the  applicant,  in  which  he  requested  that  he  be
reinstated on active duty, retroactive to 7 Jun 87, and he receive all
promotions which he would have received if he had been  on  continuous
active duty; or, in the alternative, he be  medically  retired  as  of
June 6, 1987; he receive flight pay, base pay, and all allowances upon
reinstatement to active duty; or, in the alternative, such payment and
allowances to which he would have been  entitled  if  on  active  duty
until judgment in his suit; in the  alternative,  he  be  retired  for
service, at the convenience of the Secretary of the Air Force,  or  at
judgment in his suit; and he receive attorney fees, costs of his suit,
and any other further relief to which he may be justly  entitled  (see
AFBCMR 91-00285, with Exhibits A through F).

On December 30, 1991, the applicant requested reconsideration  of  his
original application.  However, a determination was made that
his request did not meet the criteria for reconsideration by the Board
(Exhibit G).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was wrongfully discharged from active duty because the Air  Force’s
conduct and actions involved reckless and callous indifference to  the
rights guaranteed to himself  and  his  son  under  federal  laws  and
protected by the Constitution; and that he was discharged from the Air
Force Reserve because his  personnel  records  were  so  tainted  with
reprisals and adverse personnel actions that  he  was  prevented  from
obtaining a billet in any reserve unit.

A complete copy of the applicant’s request for reconsideration  is  at
Exhibit H.

By letter, dated 5 Sep 95, the applicant’s  wife  provided  additional
documentary evidence for consideration (Exhibit I).

On 27 Apr 96, the applicant  also  submitted  additional  matters  for
consideration (Exhibit J).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Pursuant  to  the  Board’s  request,  the  General  Law  Division,  HQ
USAF/JAG,  reviewed  the  applicant’s  most  recent   submission   and
indicated, in  their  view,  10  USC  1034  was  inapplicable  to  the
applicant’s case.  There was  no  evidence  in  the  record  that  any
reprisal took place, notwithstanding the applicant’s assertions to the
contrary.  The record showed the applicant  voluntarily  resigned  his
regular commission in 1987 in order to move back  to  the  Fort  Worth
area for family reasons, and that his separation from  the  Air  Force
Reserve  was  a  routine  action  based  upon  his  lack   of   active
participation.  Accordingly, JAG recommended  that  the  case  not  be
processed under 10 USC 1034.

A complete copy of the JAG evaluation is at Exhibit K.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In his response, the applicant indicated  that  he  was  subjected  to
command-compelled psychiatric evaluations and denied a Children Have a
Potential (CHAP) reassignment as a means of reprisal for reporting the
violations of law and regulations concerning the Rehabilitation Act of
1973,  the  Education  of  All  Handicapped  Law,  “the  Developmental
Disabilities,” the 1977 Education of All Handicapped Children Act, and
the Air Force CHAP program, which he reported because of the  improper
medical and education care of his handicapped son.

According to the applicant, his demand focuses on a  request  for  the
removal from his record of any of the “Arm Chair psychiatrist”  mental
evaluations made by unqualified personnel from all of  his  Air  Force
records; reinstatement in the Air Force  with  back  pay,  allowances,
leave, benefits, and promotions; and, an expunging of all his military
medical and personnel records of reference to or  resulting  from  the
improper psychiatric evaluations that were conducted in  reprisal  for
his communications to Congress.

Applicant’s complete response and additional documentary evidence  are
at Exhibit M.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ USAF/JAG  reviewed  the  applicant’s  most  recent  submission  and
indicated that no new evidence was presented  to  persuade  them  that
their earlier advisory was incorrect.  Even applying current statutory
and regulatory standards to his case, no reprisal was  found  to  have
taken place.  Accordingly, JAG again recommended that the  application
not be processed under 10 USC 1034.

A complete copy of the JAG evaluation is at Exhibit N.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In his response, dated 16 Aug 96, the applicant indicated that, in his
view, the JAG advisory opinion was not  factual  and,  therefore,  was
without merit.

By letter, 6 Oct 96, the applicant provided  additional  evidence  for
consideration.

Applicant’s complete responses and additional documentary evidence are
at Exhibit P.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Pursuant to the Board’s request, The HQ Air  Force  Medical  Operation
Agency, AFMOA/SGOF, reviewed the applicant’s submissions and  provided
their assessment concerning the applicant’s allegations regarding  the
CHAP program.  According to SGOF, no  CHAP  reassignment  request  was
submitted at the time of the applicant’s permanent change  of  station
(PCS) to Loring AFB, Maine.  The applicant was appropriately  informed
that it was his responsibility to make such a request.   According  to
the evidence  provided,  a  CHAP  reassignment  request  made  by  the
applicant in the Spring of 1986 resulted in his reassignment to Offutt
AFB, NE.  The CHAP reassignment  request  made  by  the  applicant  on
31 Dec 86 was properly denied by  the  Air  Force  Military  Personnel
Center according to regulations and policies then in  force.   He  was
invited to resubmit his request should  his  son’s  medical  condition
deteriorate.

A complete copy of the SGOF evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit
Q.

The  HQ  USAF/JAG  again  reviewed  the  applicant’s  submissions  and
indicated that, in their view, all the  referrals  for  mental  health
evaluations were clearly justified by the applicant’s behavior at  the
time,  and  there  was  no  evidence  of  reprisal.   The  applicant’s
separation from active duty was clearly voluntary, and  his  discharge
from the Air Force Reserve was a routine action based  on  a  lack  of
participation.

According to JAG, they concurred with the  advisory  from  SGOF.   The
record demonstrated that the applicant  was  aware  of  his  right  to
request a CHAP reassignment when notified of his assignment to  Loring
AFB, but he elected not to do so.   The  record  further  demonstrated
that the Air Force had a rational basis for rejecting the  applicant’s
Dec 86 request for reassignment  from  Offutt  AFB  to  Carswell  AFB.
There was insufficient evidence from which to conclude that his  son’s
asthmatic condition worsened by living in Omaha, and no  guarantee  it
would improve in Forth Worth, especially since he had  developed  lung
disease and suffered multiple exacerbations of his  illness  requiring
treatment and hospitalization during the family’s previous  assignment
at that location.

JAG indicated that they found without merit the applicant’s contention
that the CHAP/EFMP programs violated federal law.

A complete copy of the JAG evaluation is at Exhibit R.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant’s detailed response to the SGOF and  JAG  evaluations,  with
attachment, is attached at Exhibit T.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

In  earlier  findings,  we  determined  that  there  was  insufficient
evidence to warrant any corrective action  regarding  the  applicant’s
request that he be reinstated on active duty, retroactive to 7 Jun 87,
and he receive all promotions which he would have received if  he  had
been on  continuous  active  duty;  or,  in  the  alternative,  he  be
medically retired as of June 6, 1987; he receive flight pay, base pay,
and all allowances upon reinstatement  to  active  duty;  or,  in  the
alternative, such payment and  allowances  that  he  would  have  been
entitled if on  active  duty  until  judgment  in  his  suit;  in  the
alternative, he be retired for service,  at  the  convenience  of  the
Secretary of the Air Force, or at judgment in his suit; and he receive
attorney fees, costs of his suit, and  any  other  further  relief  to
which he may be justly entitled.  We  have  reviewed  the  applicant’s
most recent submission, in which he requests that, under 10 USC  1034,
all personnel records, particularly  those  referring  to  psychiatric
diagnosis made by nonqualified individuals (those other than  licensed
mental health care providers) be expunged from his records; and, he be
reinstated to the Air Force with back pay, allowances, leave, benefits
and promotions, and we do  not  find  it  sufficiently  persuasive  to
override the rationale provided by the Air Force  offices  of  primary
responsibility  (OPRs).   Therefore,  in  the  absence  of  clear  and
convincing evidence to the contrary, we agree with the recommendations
of the OPRs and adopt their rationale as the basis  for  our  decision
that the applicant has failed to sustain his  burden  of  establishing
that he has suffered either an error or  an  injustice.   Accordingly,
the applicant’s requests are 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 8 Jul 99, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
      Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Member
      Ms. Sophie A. Clark, Member

The following additional documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 11 Feb 92.
    Exhibit H.  DD Form 149, dated 1 Jul 95, w/atchs.
    Exhibit I.  Letter, applicant’s wife, dated 5 Sep 95,
                w/atchs.
    Exhibit J.  Letter, applicant, dated 27 Apr 96, w/atchs.
    Exhibit K.  Letter, HQ USAF/JAG, dated 20 May 96.
    Exhibit L.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 23 May 96.
    Exhibit M.  Letter, applicant, dated 18 Jun 96, w/atchs.
    Exhibit N.  Letter, HQ USAF/JAG, dated 18 Jul 96.
    Exhibit O.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 25 Jul 96.
    Exhibit P.  Letter, applicant, dated 16 Aug 96, w/atchs.
    Exhibit Q.  Letter, AFMOA/SGOF, dated 9 Feb 98, w/atch.
    Exhibit R.  Letter, HQ USAF/JAG, dated 16 Mar 98.
    Exhibit S.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 30 Apr 98.
    Exhibit T.  Letter, applicant, dated 26 May 98, w/atch.




                                   CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
                                   Panel Chair