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

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  97-03390
                             INDEX CODE: 110.02

                             COUNSEL:  STEPHEN J. DUNN

                             HEARING DESIRED:  YES


_________________________________________________________________

RESUME OF CASE

On 21 April 1998, the Board considered and denied applicant's  11 July  1997
application requesting that (1) her uncharacterized discharge be changed  to
a medical discharge; (2) a  referral  to  a  Physical  Evaluation  Board  to
determine disability level; (3) restore all pay and allowances due her;  (4)
grant a military pension; and (5) further relief as may be  appropriate.   A
complete copy of the Record of Proceedings is attached at Exhibit E.

On 1 June 1999, applicant’s counsel submitted a  letter,  with  attachments,
requesting that the applicant’s appeal be reconsidered.  Counsel’s  complete
submission is attached at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION

The Chief Medical Consultant, AFBCMR, reviewed this application  and  states
that further discussion of a supposition proposed some  9  years  after  the
fact is unwarranted.  The  applicant  should  have  been  separated  with  a
fraudulent enlistment  because  of  her  failure  to  reveal  a  significant
psychiatric  background  history  that  would  surely  have  precluded   her
entrance in  the  first  place.   As  seen  in  her  military  records,  the
applicant’s problems in  basic  training  began  within  a  week  or  so  of
arrival, clearly indicating a predisposition to such problems relating to  a
preexisting mental health condition  that  was  incompatible  with  military
service.  Her problems did not begin in  the  service...they  long  predated
her  arrival,  and  she  is,  therefore,   not   eligible   for   disability
compensation as she  requests.   The  BCMR  Medical  Consultant  is  of  the
opinion that no change in the  records  is  warranted  and  the  application
should be denied.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION

Applicant’s counsel reviewed the Air Force evaluation and  states  that  the
applicant  reiterates  her  psychiatric  condition  originated  during   her
service with the Air Force.  It is the applicant’s  position  the  stressors
of the Air Force basic  training  caused  and  exacerbated  her  psychiatric
condition.

Counsel’s complete response is attached at Exhibit I.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to  demonstrate  the
existence  of  probable   error   or   injustice.    After   reviewing   the
documentation submitted with this request for reconsideration, we are  still
not persuaded that the applicant’s entry level separation was  in  error  or
unjust.  The Air  Force  states  that  had  her  history  of  mental  health
problems been revealed at the time of her enlistment in the Air  Force,  she
would have been denied entry to the military in  accordance  with  induction
medical standards.  The Air Force further states that the  applicant  should
have been separated with a fraudulent enlistment because of her  failure  to
reveal significant psychiatric background history  that  would  surely  have
precluded her entrance in the first place.  We agree with  the  opinion  and
recommendation of the Air Force and adopt their rationale as the  basis  for
our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim  of  an  error  or
injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we  again
find no compelling basis to recommend granting the  relief  sought  in  this
application.

2.    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 issue(s) 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  applicant
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 23 July 1999, under the provisions of AFR 31-3:

            Mr. Benedict A. Kausal, IV, Panel Chair
            Mr. David C. Van Gasbeck, Member
            Mr. Dana J. Gilmour, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit E. ROP, dated 22 May 98 w/atchs.
      Exhibit F. Counsel's letter, dated 1 Jun 99 w/atchs.
      Exhibit G. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 28 Jun 99.
      Exhibit H. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 9 July 1999.
      Exhibit I. Counsel’s Response, dated 13 Jul 99.





                             BENEDICT A. KAUSAL, IV
                             Panel Chair



                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  97-03390
            INDEX CODE: 110.02

            COUNSEL: STEPHEN J. DUNN

            HEARING DESIRED: Yes


Applicant requests that (1) her uncharacterized discharge be  changed  to  a
medical discharge;  (2)  a  referral  to  a  Physical  Evaluation  Board  to
determine disability level; (3) restore all pay and allowances due her;  (5)
grant a military pension; and (6) further  relief  as  may  be  appropriate.
Applicant's submission is at Exhibit A.

The  appropriate  Air  Force  offices  evaluated  applicant's  requests  and
provided advisory opinions to the  Board  recommending  the  application  be
denied  (Exhibit  C).   The  advisory  opinions  were   forwarded   to   the
applicant's counsel for review and response (Exhibit D).  As of  this  date,
no response has been received by this office.

After  careful  consideration  of  applicant's  request  and  the  available
evidence of record, we find insufficient evidence of error or  injustice  to
warrant corrective action.  The facts and opinions stated  in  the  advisory
opinion appear to be based on the evidence  of  record  and  have  not  been
rebutted by applicant.  Absent  persuasive  evidence  applicant  was  denied
rights to which entitled, appropriate  regulations  were  not  followed,  or
appropriate standards were not applied, we find  no  basis  to  disturb  the
existing record.

Accordingly, applicant's request is denied.

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 issue(s) involved.  Therefore, the  request  for  a
hearing is not favorably considered.

The  Board  staff  is  directed  to  inform  applicant  of  this   decision.
Applicant should also be informed that this decision is final and will  only
be reconsidered upon the presentation of new  relevant  evidence  which  was
not reasonably available at the time the application was filed.

Members of the Board Mr. David C. Van Gasbeck, Mr. Benedict A.  Kausal,  IV,
and Mr. Dana J. Gilmour considered this application  on  21  April  1998  in
accordance with the provisions of Air Force  Instruction  36-2603,  and  the
governing statute, 10, U.S.C. 1552.



                                     BENEDICT A. KAUSAL, IV
                                     Panel Chair

Exhibits:

A.  Applicant's DD Form 149
B.  Available Master Personnel Records
C.  Advisory Opinion
D.  AFBCMR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinion