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

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  00-00043
            INDEX CODE:  124.04

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His mental health  file  be  removed  from  his  records  and  that  he  be
reinstated to the Air Force with back pay and promotion  to  the  grade  of
Major.

___________________________________________________________________

RESUME OF THE CASE

On 25 August 1997, the applicant was  involuntarily  separated  from  active
duty in the grade of  captain  because  of  physical  disability  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-3212.  The applicant received $37,879,88 in  disability
severance pay and a 10% disability rating.  He was credited with 7 years,  7
months and 28 days of active service.

By application dated 29 December 1999, the applicant  requested  his  mental
health file be removed from his records and that he  be  reinstated  to  the
Air Force with back pay and promotion to the grade of Major.   On  1  August
2000, the Board considered the applicant’s  application  for  correction  of
military records.  The Board recommended that the  applicant  be  authorized
travel to Wilford Hall  USAF  Medical  Center,  Texas  for  the  purpose  of
evaluation of his medical condition, and that the results of the  evaluation
be forwarded to the Board.  The  Boards  recommendations  were  subsequently
approved.

For  an  accounting  of  the  facts  and   circumstances   surrounding   the
applicant’s separation, and, the Boards consideration of  this  appeal,  see
AFBCMR 00-00043, at Exhibit H.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Based on a recommendation by the BCMR Medical Consultant, concurrence  of
the Board and approval by SAF/MRB, the applicant underwent a  psychiatric
examination and psychological testing at Wilford Hall USAF Medical Center
on 31 October and 1 November 2000.   The  report  from  the  59  MDOG/MMB
Psychiatric Department indicates that their evaluation did not  find  any
presence of a current Psychotic  Disorder,  or  any  Axis  I  psychiatric
condition.  However, the  patient’s  history  of  repeated  interpersonal
difficulty under the stress of  active  duty,  together  with  his  rigid
thinking in terms of the way  he  believes  things  should  be,  and  his
difficulty taking  personal  responsibility  for  his  difficulties,  did
indicate the possibility of  a  personality  disorder.   Considering  the
significant emotional demands on an active duty Air Force  chaplain,  MMB
is concerned that a return to active duty very well may result in similar
patterns of difficulty seen prior to his  separation.   MMB  states  that
while he is competent for record purposes, they do not recommend that  he
be returned to active duty (Exhibit I).

On  15  December  2000  the  BCMR  Medical  Consultant  reevaluated   the
applicant’s  record  with  attention  to  the  Wilford  Hall  psychiatric
consultation notes.  The Medical Consultant indicated that it is apparent
that the  applicant  functions  well  in  the  civilian  sector  yet  had
difficulty in the military setting  adhering  to  expected  standards  of
behavior  and  performance.   This  is  not  an  unusual   scenario   for
individuals whose particular personality makeup may be  stressed  by  the
rigors of military discipline and control.  Based on the  current  mental
health evaluation provided, the BCMR Medical Consultant states  that  the
applicant would not be a good risk for return  to  active  duty  and  his
appeal for reinstatement should not be favorably recommended (Exhibit J).
___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations  and  commented  that  the
testing and evaluation results from Wilford Hall verify that he is fit  and
competent to return to active duty.  The evaluation clearly shows that  the
previous evaluation done at Travis Air Force Base was false and  erroneous.
The Wilford Hall psychiatrist, friend and colleague of the Travis Air Force
Base psychiatrist disregarded the facts.  The statement  that  he  was  not
able to handle the rigors of active duty is an opinion based on speculation
and no fact.  The facts are that he was selected for recommendation  to  be
promoted below the zone and was a good contributing chaplain  team  member.
He worked well with his  peers  and  should  be  returned  to  active  duty
(Exhibit L).

___________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Pursuant to the Board’s request USAF/JAG was asked to review and  comment
on whether the applicant’s most recent medical evaluations cast doubt  on
the efficacy of the applicant’s discharge in August 1997 for a  psychotic
disorder.

JAG indicates that based on the preponderance of the available  evidence,
the Formal Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB) determined that the applicant
had a psychotic disorder that made him unfit for duty.  As pointed out by
AFPC/JA, once the government  established  grounds  for  the  applicant’s
discharge by a preponderance of the evidence, the burden of proof is  now
on the applicant to show that he did not have  a  psychotic  disorder  in
August 1997.  While the most recent evaluation established that  he  does
not currently demonstrate signs or symptoms of  psychosis,  it  concluded
“it is unclear whether the patient was psychotic in 1997.”

Absent a more definitive diagnosis, JAG states that the applicant has not
met his burden of proof establishing that he was not psychotic  in  1997.
His decision in 1997 not to undergo an evaluation and/or testify  at  the
FPEB, where he could have clarified what he now insists  are  defects  in
the mental health evaluation, limited the evidence the FPEB  relied  upon
to make its decision.  It was the applicant’s choice and  the  government
should not be placed at a disadvantage  now  because  of  the  deliberate
actions of the applicant in 1997.

Therefore, JAG is of the opinion that the most recent medical  evaluation
did not establish that the government erred in 1997 in  determining  that
the applicant had a  psychotic  disorder  that  rendered  him  unfit  for
continued military service.  There  being  no  error  or  injustice,  JAG
recommends the applicant’s request be denied (Exhibit M).

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluations was forwarded to  the  applicant  on  18
August 2001 for review and response.  As  of  this  date,  this  office  has
received no response (Exhibit N).
___________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

Insufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of probable error or injustice.  After reviewing the  evidence  of
record, to include the current psychological  and  psychiatric  evaluations,
dated 13 Nov 00 and 17 Nov 00, respectfully, we are not persuaded  that  the
applicant has shown that the diagnoses made in 1997 was in error or  unjust.
 The current evaluations do not state that  the  applicant  did  not  suffer
from a psychotic disorder in 1997.  To the contrary, the Staff  Psychiatrist
stated in his findings  that  it  was  unclear  whether  the  applicant  was
psychotic in 1997.  In  addition,  we  note  that  the  Chief,  General  Law
Division, opines that the current evaluations do not establish that the  Air
Force erred in 1997.  They state that it was the applicant  who  refused  to
take advantage of the opportunities during  the  disability  processing  and
chose not to undergo an evaluation and/or testify at the  Formal  Evaluation
Board (FPEB), where he could have clarified what he now insists are  defects
in his mental health evaluation.  In view of the above, we are in  agreement
with the comments of  the  Chief,  General  Law  Division  and  adopt  their
rationale as our basis for concluding that the applicant has  not  been  the
victim of either an error  or  injustice.   Therefore,  in  the  absence  of
evidence to  the  contrary,  we  find  no  basis  upon  which  to  recommend
favorable action on this application.

_________________________________________________________________

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 13 March 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Rita S. Looney, Panel Chair
      Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Member
      Ms. Melinda J. Loftin, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit H.  Record of Proceedings, dated 31 Aug 00, w/atchs.
    Exhibit I.  Psychiatric Evaluation, dated 22 Nov 00.
    Exhibit J.  BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 15 Nov 2000.
    Exhibit K.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 17 Jan 01.
    Exhibit L.  Applicant's Letter, dated 10 Feb 01.
    Exhibit M.  Letter, USAF/JAG, dated 30 Jul 01
    Exhibit N.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 18 Aug 01.
    Exhibit O.  IG Report, dated 2 Apr 97, withdrawn.
    Exhibit P.  MEO Report, dated 22 May 97, withdrawn.




                                   RITA S. LOONEY
                                   Panel Chair