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


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  94-03102
            INDEX CODE:  108.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His honorable release  from  active  duty  be  changed  to  a  medical
retirement.

_________________________________________________________________

RESUME OF THE CASE:

Applicant is a former Air  Force  Reserve  member  who  was  honorably
discharged from the Air Force Reserve under the provisions of AFR  35-
41 on 20 Jan 95.

Available documentation indicates that, while  serving  on  an  active
duty tour from 15 Sep 92 through 13 Nov 92, the applicant was  injured
in an motor vehicle accident on 14 Oct 92.

On 27 Feb 95, considered and denied a similar appeal by the  applicant
(see AFBCMR 94-03102, with Exhibits A through E).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Counsel stated it is difficult  to  believe  that  the  applicant  was
medically fit for further duty in the Air Force Reserve.  His injuries
were rated at 50  percent  by  the  Department  of  Veterans  Affairs,
effective 14 Nov 92, which was only two months following  his  release
from active duty on 4 Sep 92.  The rating  was  based  solely  on  the
injuries received while performing his active duty for training in the
Air Force Reserve.

In support of the applicant’s appeal, counsel  provided  copies  of  a
Summary Evidence and Adjudicative  Actions  and  DVA  rating  decision
(Exhibit F).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the BCMR Medical Consultant, reviewed
the most recent submission and recommended denial.  According  to  the
Medical  Consultant,  he  agreed  with  the  initial  advisories  from
AFMPC/DPMMMR and AFMPC/DPMAD (Exhibit C) which stated that  there  was
no apparent requirement for a Medical Evaluation Board in  regards  to
the injury the applicant sustained in an automobile accident on 14 Oct
92.  In the Medical Consultant’s opinion, no change in the records was
warranted.

A complete copy of the Medical Consultant’s evaluation is  at  Exhibit
G.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Counsel  indicated  that  they  continue   support   the   applicant’s
contention that he should have been placed on medical hold for medical
evaluation board proceedings.  They believe that if this procedure had
been followed, the applicant would have been found unfit for worldwide
duty due to his physical  condition  and  would  have  been  medically
separated with either severance pay  or,  perhaps,  if  a  30  percent
evaluation was found,  military  retirement.   They  believe  that  an
objective review would indicate that since the applicant was so  close
to his normal date of separation, base officials decided  to  let  him
separate based on normal expired term of service and  save  a  lot  of
paperwork  that  would  be  involved  in  medical   evaluation   board
proceedings.  Counsel  stated  that  he  believes  that  an  objective
evaluation will lead one to the conclusion  that  the  veteran  should
have been rated at least 30 percent for his disability and  his  named
placed on the disability retired list.

Counsel’s complete response is at Exhibit I.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the  BCMR  Medical  Consultant  again
reviewed the applicant’s records to ensure that the correct opinion to
the Board.  According to the Medical Consultant, the fact  that  lupus
was thought to be present had no  bearing  on  whether  the  applicant
should have  been  granted  a  Medical  Evaluation  Board  or  medical
disability separation or  retirement.   Upon  another  review  of  the
records, it is again the opinion of the Medical Consultant  that  this
is the correct recommendation to  the  Board.   There  is  nothing  of
evidence to indicate that the applicant was unable to perform his duty
satisfactorily.  The Medical Consultant was again of the opinion  that
no change in the records was warranted and recommended denial.

A complete copy of the Medical Consultant’s evaluation is  at  Exhibit
J.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Counsel stated that although he was thankful for  the  opportunity  to
review the advisory opinion, he did not wish  to  submit  any  further
statement or additional documentary material in support of the  appeal
at this time.  However, he did provide a statement from the applicant.

Counsel response and statement from the applicant are at Exhibit L.

_________________________________________________________________

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 his records be corrected to reflect that he was medically
retired.  We have reviewed the applicant’s most recent submissions and
find  them  insufficient  to  warrant  a  reversal  of  our   previous
determination in this case.  While we noted  that  the  applicant  was
injured in an automobile accident during the period  of  time  he  was
serving on active duty for training, we find no evidence  which  shows
to  our  satisfaction  that  he  was  ever  considered  not  medically
qualified for continued military service or found unfit to perform the
duties of his rank and  office,  which  is,  by  law,  the  basis  for
disability  processing.   Therefore,  in  the  absence  of  sufficient
evidence to the contrary, we agree with the opinion and recommendation
of the BCMR Medical Consultant and adopt his 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, we again find no compelling basis to  recommend  granting
the relief sought in his appeal.

_________________________________________________________________

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 5 Jan 99, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Benedict A. Kausal, Panel Chair
      Mr. Patrick R. Wheeler, Member
      Mrs. Margaret A. Zook, Member

The following additional documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit F.  Letter, counsel, dated 19 Jun 95, w/atchs.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 24 Mar 96.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 29 Mar 96.
    Exhibit I.  Letter, counsel, dated 16 Apr 96.
    Exhibit J.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 3 Jun 96.
    Exhibit K.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 13 Jun 96.
    Exhibit L.  Letter, counsel, dated 2 Jul 96, w/atchs.




                                   BENEDICT A. KAUSAL IV
                                   Panel Chair