RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-02603
            INDEX CODE:  108.00

            COUNSEL: NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to reflect a 10  percent  disability  for  an
injury to his right hand, and, that he receive a $50,000 settlement.

His undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was injured while working in the kitchen.

In support of  his  appeal,  the  applicant  provided  a  copy  of  an
operation report and personal statement, and a statement  provided  in
his behalf.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the
letters  prepared  by  the  appropriate  offices  of  the  Air  Force.
Accordingly, there is no need to recite these facts in this Record  of
Proceedings.

On  21  Apr  80,  the  Board  considered  and  denied  an  application
pertaining to the applicant, in which he requested that his records be
corrected to show that he was discharged because  of  medical  reasons
(Exhibit C).

On 26 Mar 85, the Board considered and denied the applicant’s  request
that his discharge be upgraded (Exhibit D).

Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of  Investigation,
Clarksburg,  West  Virginia,  indicated  on  the  basis  of  the  data
furnished they were unable to locate an arrest record.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant reviewed this application and  recommended
denial.  The Medical Consultant noted that the applicant's service was
marked by numerous disciplinary problems including several periods  of
absences without leave (AWOL) and reports from his  supervisory  chain
of his ineffectiveness in performance of his duties.  He worked  as  a
kitchen helper and, in October 1942, he cut the back of his right hand
while crushing a tin can.  This resulted in severance of the  extensor
tendon of the middle finger, and in March 1943 he was admitted to  the
hospital for surgical repair.  Notes from that admission show that  he
achieved complete return of function of the finger, and  at  discharge
on  25  April  1943,  the  physician  noted  "100%   recovery."    The
applicant's maladjustment to the  military  and  resulting  misconduct
were the reason for his discharge within the next three months.   This
characterization of service has prevented the applicant from receiving
benefits from the Department of Veterans  Affairs,  and  his  previous
appeals for correction of his records have been denied by the  AFBCMR.
He was diagnosed with a psychopathic and  inadequate  personality  and
chronic alcoholism, existed prior to  service  (EPTS),  prior  to  his
discharge under Section VIII guidelines, undesirable habits and traits
of character.

The Medical Consultant indicated that while the applicant was  treated
for some ordinary medical problems while on active duty, as will occur
in most service members,  none  of  these  problems  singly,  nor  any
combination of them, was of sufficient severity to justify  a  finding
of unfit.  There  was  no  evidence  to  suggest  that  the  applicant
deserved consideration for separation through the  Medical  Disability
Evaluation System.  He was of  the  opinion  that  no  change  in  the
records was warranted.

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

The Physical Disability Division, AFPC/DPPD, reviewed this application
and recommended denial.  According to  DPPD,  the  applicant  has  not
submitted any material or documentation to show that he was unfit  due
to a physical disability at the time of his involuntary administrative
discharge from active duty.

A complete copy of the DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant provided an initial response and subsequent responses  which
are attached at Exhibits H through M.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

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

2.  The application was not  timely  filed;  however,  it  is  in  the
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the existence of probable error or injustice.

      a.  Regarding  the  applicant’s  request  that  his  undesirable
discharge be upgraded to honorable, we note that in earlier  findings,
a determination was made  that  there  was  insufficient  evidence  to
warrant any corrective action regarding the  applicant’s  request  for
upgrade  of  his  undesirable  discharge.   We   have   reviewed   the
applicant’s most recent appeal and find he again has not provided  any
evidence that the discharge action was improper  or  contrary  to  the
prevailing  regulation.   We  are  also   not   persuaded   that   the
documentation provided in support of his appeal is sufficient at  this
time  to  recommend  upgrade  of  his  discharge  based  on  clemency.
Accordingly, we find no basis to act  favorably  on  his  request  for
upgrade of his undesirable discharge.

      b.  Applicant also requests that his  records  be  corrected  to
reflect a 10 percent disability for an injury to his right hand,  and,
that he receive a $50,000 settlement.  He  also  previously  requested
that his records be corrected to show that he was  discharged  because
of medical reasons, which was considered and  denied  by  this  Board.
Concerning his most recent request, we took notice of the  applicant's
complete submission in judging the merits of  the  case;  however,  we
agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force offices  of
primary responsibility (OPRs) 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 find no compelling basis to recommend favorable action on
the applicant’s request.

4.  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   issues   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 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 6 June 2000, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
      Mr. Patrick R. Wheeler, Member
      Ms. Barbara J. White-Olson, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Forms 149, dated May 98 and Nov 98,
            w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Record of Proceedings, dated 16 Dec 98,
            w/atch.
      Exhibit D. Record of Proceedings, undated, w/atch.
      Exhibit E. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dtd 26 Oct 98.
      Exhibit F. Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 3 Dec 98.
      Exhibit G. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 21 Dec 99.
      Exhibit H. Letter, applicant, undated.
      Exhibit I. Letter, applicant, undated.
      Exhibit J. Letter, applicant, undated.
      Exhibit K. Letter, applicant, dated 23 Aug 99, w/atchs.
      Exhibit L. Letter, applicant, dated Sep 98, w/atch.
      Exhibit M. Letter, applicant, dated Feb 00, w/atchs.




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair