RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:            DOCKET NUMBER:  00-03347
                 INDEX CODE:  110.02
                 COUNSEL:  NONE

                 HEARING DESIRED:  YES

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His involuntary disability retirement on 19 August 1999 be revoked and he
be restored to active duty retroactive to that date.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The records and proceedings leading to his disability retirement were  in
error and unjust and should be rescinded, amended,  and/or  deleted  from
his records.

In  support  of  his  appeal,  the  applicant  submitted  a  brief   with
attachments (to include  several  scientific  articles  and  an  Air  War
College paper), a Motion for a hearing and appearance of  two  witnesses,
and a brief to support his motion for a hearing (Exhibit A).

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 3 June 1970 the applicant was appointed a  second  lieutenant  in  the
Regular Army where he served until his transfer to  the  Reserve  of  the
Army on 12 August 1975.  He separated  from  the  Army  Reserve  and  was
appointed a captain (Judge Advocate) in the Reserve of the Air  Force  on
28 March 1981.  He was integrated into the Regular Air Force on 21  April
1981.  Effective 8 January 1985, he transferred from the  Judge  Advocate
Corps to the Line of the Air Force and  was  assigned  to  duties  as  an
Acquisition Contracting Officer and, subsequently, as a Contracting Staff
Officer.  He was  progressively  promoted  to  the  grade  of  lieutenant
colonel.  On  19 August  1999  he  was  permanently  retired  because  of
physical disability.  He was credited with 25 years, 3 months and 5  days
of active duty service.

The relevant facts pertaining to this  application,  extracted  from  the
applicant's military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the
appropriate office of the Air Force.  Accordingly, there is  no  need  to
recite these facts in this Record of Proceedings.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief Medical  Consultant,  AFBCMR,  indicates  that  after  multiple
psychiatric evaluations which began in 1997, the  applicant  was  retired
with 30% disability because  of  Delusional  Disorder,  Mixed  Type  with
Definite Social and Industrial  Impairment.   All  evaluations  concluded
that he suffered from incapacitating delusions  that  culminated  in  his
writing two letters to President Clinton (16 July 1997  and  18  February
1998) seeking redress for imagined theft of his ideas on  conducting  air
operations in Bosnia and Kosovo that he contends  he  wrote  in  a  paper
prepared for his studies in Air War College.  The applicant  argues  that
his ideas were stolen by subterfuge and expounds his significance in  the
scientific arena where he provides writings allegedly done  by  him  that
argue the evidence  of  faster-than-light  particles.   The  bizarre  and
obviously  inflationary  nature  of  his  arguments  was  significant  in
arriving at the medical conclusion for  which  he  was  found  unfit  for
further service.

The Medical Consultant states that competent  medical  personnel  from  3
different facilities arrived at  a  unanimous  conclusion  regarding  the
applicant’s mental state for which disability retirement was recommended.
 The Wilford Hall opinion was reached by consensus of the  entire  mental
health staff who debated the case in conference.   The  applicant  argues
that collusion occurred among the 3 provider groups, but the  records  do
not indicate any such  collusion  occurred.   He  also  argues  that  the
information on his last  performance  report,  “accusations  against  the
President result in a loss of confidence in his ability  to  continue  on
active duty,” should not be allowed.  The events proceeded the  dates  of
the reporting period  and  these  events  would  not  have  substantially
changed the character of the report.  However, the information  regarding
the letters to Mr. Clinton does substantially alter the report  that  had
closed out on 30 May 1999, apparently with the writer  of  that  document
being unaware of the ongoing psychiatric evaluations.

The Consultant is  convinced  that  the  events  beginning  in  mid  1997
established,  without  question,   deterioration   in   the   applicant’s
perception of his existing world that  rendered  him  unfit  for  further
military service.  On 10 December 1999 a one-day  psychiatric  evaluation
for the Department of Veterans Affairs was performed and  concluded  that
he suffered no psychiatric disorder. This diagnosis was based on a  brief
encounter only, and did not have the benefit of the military records  for
review, information that would have been immensely important in  reaching
a decision after the single-session patient encounter.

The BCMR Medical consultant indicates that  the  applicant  was  properly
evaluated and treated in the disability system, and no error or injustice
occurred that  would  warrant  favorable  consideration  of  his  request
(Exhibit C).

The  Physical  Disability  Division,  AFPC/DPPD,  indicates  the  records
reflect the applicant was presented before an  Medical  Evaluation  Board
(MEB)  on  28  January  1999,  and  referred  to  the  Informal  Physical
Evaluation Board (IPEB).  The MEB found the member  unfit  for  continued
military service for a diagnosis of delusional disorder, mixed type, with
a definite social  and  industrial  adaptability  impairment.   Following
their evaluation, the IPEB recommended that  he  be  permanently  retired
with a 30% disability rating.

On 9 April 1999, with the assistance of a legal counselor, the member met
the Formal Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB).   The  Board  confirmed  the
findings and recommendations of the  IPEB  and  recommended  that  he  be
permanently retired with a 30% disability rating.

The applicant disagreed with the findings of the  FPEB  and  submitted  a
written rebuttal to the Secretary of  the  Air  Force  Personnel  Council
(SAFPC).  The Council considered the applicant’s package  and  noted  his
desire to  return  to  duty.   The  Council  reviewed  the  evidence  and
testimony presented before the FPEB, the remarks by the  FPEB  and  IPEB,
the service medical records, and medical summaries  leading  to  the  MEB
before arriving at their decision  to  concur  with  the  IPEB  and  FPEB
recommendations for a permanent retirement with a 30%  disability  rating
under the provisions of Title 10, United States Code (USC) Section 1201.

DPPD states the applicant has not submitted any material or documentation
to show that he was improperly rated or processed under the provisions of
military disability laws  and  policy  in  effect  at  the  time  of  his
permanent  disability  retirement.   Therefore,   DPPD   recommends   the
applicant’s request be denied (Exhibit D).

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and submitted a  19-page
brief and a  2-page  affidavit  with  attachments.   In  the  brief,  the
applicant contends that the parties, issuing the six  documents  referred
to in his December 2000 brief submitted with  his  original  application,
acted in  an  arbritrary  and  capricious  manner  and  issued  decisions
unsupported by  substantial  evidence.   They  unreasonably  ignored  the
abundant evidence contradicting and disproving  their  conclusions.   The
MEB, IPEB, FPEB, and reviewing bodies failed to sustain their  burden  of
proving he was physically unable to do the duties of his office or  grade
because of the alleged disability.  Furthermore, the FPEB denied him  his
constitutionally protected right to confront  adverse  witnesses  at  his
FPEB  hearing.   He  has  never  had  a  due  process  hearing  that  the
constitution requires the Air Force to provide.  He implores the
Board to have President Clinton and  Captain  Benzick  be  present  at  a
hearing and to allow him the opportunity to question both witnesses.  The
applicant continues to refute many of the advisor’s comments by referring
to statements previously made in his  original  brief  of  December  2000
(Exhibit F).

___________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

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

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate  the
existence of  probable  error  or  injustice.   We  took  notice  of  the
applicant's complete submission in judging the merits  of  the  case,  to
include his contention that the documents used in the proceedings leading
to his disability retirement were in error or unjust.  However,  after  a
thorough review of the applicant’s submission and his medical records, we
are not persuaded  by  the  evidence  provided  that  he  was  improperly
evaluated and that the information  considered  by  the  various  medical
boards was erroneous or inaccurate.  In the absence of  evidence  showing
the contrary, we agree with the opinion and  recommendation  of  the  Air
Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as  the
basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an
error or  injustice.   Accordingly,  the  application  is  not  favorably
considered.

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.   We  have  noted  the
applicant’s request that the former President and an Air Force  physician
be required to testify before us.   Since  we  do  not  possess  subpoena
authority, approval of this request is not  possible.   Accordingly,  the
applicant’s requests related to a hearing are denied.

___________________________________________________________________

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 31 May 2001 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Kathy L. Boockholdt, Panel Chair
      Ms. Barbara White-Olsen, Member
      Mr. Steven A. Shaw, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 December 2000, with
                attachments.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  BCMR Medical Consultant’s Letter, dated 23 January
                2001.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 7 February 2001.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 23 February 2001.
      Exhibit F.  Applicant’s Letter, dated 20 March 2001, with
                attachments




                                   KATHY L. BOOCKHOLDT
                                   Panel Chair