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

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  00-00012
            INDEX CODE:  108.04

            COUNSEL:  Mr. ANTHONY WALLUCK

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

In the applicant's request  for  reconsideration,  he  request  his  medical
records be changed to reflect the correct duty  profile,  the  Secretary  of
the Air Force reinstate his original Line of Duty (LOD)  and  incapacitation
benefits, and his  case  be  processed  through  the  Disability  Evaluation
System (DES) in accordance with Department of Defense Directive 1241.1.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

A similar appeal was considered and denied on 15 August 2000 and 20  January
2001.  For an accounting of the  facts  and  circumstances  surrounding  the
applicant's separation and the Board's consideration  of  his  appeals,  see
AFBCMR 00-00012 at Exhibit I.

On 1 October 2001 the applicant submitted  a  request  for  reconsideration,
contending that the wrong Air Force office was contacted for an advisory  on
his case.  Had the  office  of  primary  responsibility  at  the  Air  Force
Personnel Center (AFPC), or even at the  Office  of  the  Personnel  Council
been contacted for an advisory, they  would  have  indicated  that  the  Air
Force practice in cases such as this under AFI  48-123,  differs  from  what
the  AF/JA  advisory  relied  upon  on  from  their  reading  of   the   DOD
regulations.

The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit J.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPD reviewed the additional information submitted by the  applicant
on 1 Oct 01 and recommended denial.  DPPD states that the mere  presence  of
a physical defect or condition does not automatically qualify an  individual
for disability retirement or separation. The physical defect  or  conditions
must render the service member unfit for duty. Disability evaluation  begins
only  when   examination,   treatment,   hospitalization,   or   substandard
performance result  in  referral  to  an  MEB.  Evaluation  of  Air  Reserve
Component (ARC) members under  the  military  disability  evaluation  system
must meet the eligibility criteria of Chapter 8, AFI  36-3212,  and  Chapter
61, Title 10, United States Code (USC).

In order to ensure that the member received a  full  and  impartial  review,
DPPD forwarded the applicant's file  to  the  Informal  Physical  Evaluation
Board  (IPEB)  for  adjudication.   Having  reviewed  the  preponderance  of
evidence, the IPEB determined the  conclusions  arrived  in  the  Record  of
Proceedings (ROP) by the Air Force Board for Correction of Military  Records
(AFBCMR) in Docket Number # 00-00012 were right on target.  As relates to  a
potential  Disability  Evaluation  System  (DES)  decision,  were  the  case
presented to the IPEB with information contained  in  the  BCMR  submission,
the likely result would have been to return the member to duty.

Primary factors taken into  consideration  in  making  a  final  disposition
recommendation on an individual's undergoing an MEB by the PEB during  their
review consists  of:  Member's  AFSC,  Commander's  recommendation,  medical
recommendations,  years  of   military   service,   degree   of   functional
impairment,  impact  on  job  performance,  deployability,  and  performance
reports.  A thorough review of the AFBCMR case file revealed  no  errors  or
irregularities during his fitness for duty evaluation in which he was  found
fit and returned to duty with certain duty limitations.

The member has not submitted any material or documentation to  show  he  was
unfit due to a physical disability  under  the  provisions  of  Chapter  61,
Title 10, United States Code (USC).  Therefore, DPPD  recommends  denial  of
the applicant's request.

The DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit K.

AFPC/JA reviewed the applicant's  comments  contained  in  his  request  for
reconsideration, and believed his latest  submission  consists  of  argument
only, and does not contain any new evidence, as  required  by  AFI  36-2603,
paragraph 6.  In fact, in the final paragraph of  his  "Statement  Regarding
Newly Discovered Evidence," the  applicant  characterizes  his  most  recent
submission as a newly discovered conflict between the  regulations  and  his
newly discovered awareness of the prior  practices  of  the  Office  of  the
Personnel Counsel and the disability system.  The problem for  applicant  is
that he has not presented any evidence in support of  his  allegations,  but
has merely cited the Air Force instructions implementing the applicable  DOD
directives that formed the basis for the Board's previous decision.

In his cover letter dated 1 October 2001, applicant's  counsel  stated  that
he believed the office of primary responsibility (OPR) for  disabilities  at
AFPC should have provided an advisory  on  this  case.   JA  noted  that  HQ
AFPC/DPPD has provided an advisory dated 19  November  2001,  apparently  in
response to counsel's comments, and concurs with that advisory's  conclusion
that applicant's case was properly handled.

The applicant centered his reconsideration argument on paragraph  14.3,  AFI
48-123.  That paragraph states that Air Reserve Component (ARC)  individuals
must  be  medically  qualified  for  deployment  and  worldwide  duty.   The
applicant  seemed  to  view  this  medical  qualification  as  an   absolute
requirement, but DODD 1332.18, recited by AFRC/SGPA in the Board's  previous
decision, states: "Inability to perform the duties of  his  or  her  office,
grade,  rank  or  rating  in  every  geographic  location  and  under  every
conceivable circumstance will not  be  the  sole  basis  for  a  finding  of
unfitness."  The decision to return applicant to duty  was  duly  considered
previously by the BCMR,  which  stated  that  it  did  not  agree  with  his
contention that the assignment of an L3  profile  and  his  restriction  for
worldwide deployment rendered him permanently  unable  to  perform  military
duty.

Finally,  the  applicant  contends  that  the   fact   that   the   Veterans
Administration gave him a disability rating of 60% should dictate  that  the
Air Force should have processed him for retirement  rather  than  return  to
duty.  The basis of the applicant's argument is that  since  the  Department
of Veterans ' Affairs determined he  had  a  disability  that  was  service-
connected,  the  Air  Force  should  have  retired  him  with  a  disability
retirement.  This argument has previously been reviewed and rejected by  the
courts.

The applicant was not retired under the Air Force disability system  because
he was found fit for duty.  His military career has not been cut  short  due
to his medical condition.  The Veterans  Administration  will  compensate  a
member under its disability program  if  the  member's  illness  is  service
connected.  The  two  systems  were  designed  to  address   two   different
situations.  The applicant has not presented any newly  discovered  relevant
evidence  of  error  or  injustice   warranting   relief.    Therefore,   JA
recommended denial of the applicant's request for reconsideration.

The AFPC/JA evaluation is at Exhibit L.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant's counsel reiterated his previous assertions and  states  that
he disagrees with DPPD and JA that the applicant did  not  provide  any  new
evidence.  He contends that the DPPD advisory failed to provide  a  copy  of
details of the consultation with the IPEB.

The complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit N.

___________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In response to counsel's contention that DPPD failed to provide  a  copy  of
the details of their consultation with the IPEB,  DPPD  states  periodically
the DPPD  advisory  writer  uses  the  expertise  of  the  IPEB  to  confirm
controversial medical issues to ensure an accurate and complete  assessment.
 The close proximity of the IPEB  makes  this  course  of  action  feasible.
Once the IPEB has reviewed the case,  informal  notes  and  discussions  are
coordinated with the advisory writer after which they  are  incorporated  in
the DPPD advisory.

The DPPD additional advisory is at Exhibit O.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Counsel reviewed the additional advisory and provided a  response  which  is
attached at Exhibit P.

___________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of probable error or injustice.  After again reviewing all of  the
evidence provided in support of his appeal, in our opinion, other  than  the
applicant's assertions and his counsel's rebuttal  comments,  the  applicant
has not provided evidence that successfully refutes assessments of his  case
by DPPD and JA.  In this respect,  based  on  the  evidence  of  record,  it
appears that the applicant was fully  capable  of  performing  his  assigned
duties up to the date of his involuntary release from active duty under  the
provisions of  AFR  36-12.   Therefore,  we  agree  with  the  opinions  and
recommendations 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 an injustice and find  no  reason  on
which to favorably consider 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 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 26 April 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
      Ms. Barbara J. White-Olson, Member
      Mr. E. David Hoard, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit I.  Record of Proceedings, dated 1 March 01,
                        with exhibits A through H.
    Exhibit J.  Counsel's Letter, dated 1 Oct 01, w/atchs.
    Exhibit K.  AFPC/DPPD Letter, dated 19 Nov 01.
    Exhibit L.  AFPC/JA Letter, dated 19 Dec 01.
    Exhibit M.  SAF/MRBR Letter, dated 4 Jan 02.
    Exhibit N.  Counsel's Response, 13 Feb 02, w/atch.
    Exhibit O.  AFPC/DPPD Letter, dated 5 Mar 02.
    Exhibit P.  Counsel's Response, dated 9 Apr 02.





                                                   CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
                                                   Panel Chair