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


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2000-00012
            INDEX CODE:  108.04
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to reflect that he was medically retired  effective
18 Jan 98.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 1 March 2001, the Board considered and denied an appeal by the  applicant
in which he requested that his records be changed  to  reflect  a  corrected
duty profile, his original Line-of-Duty (LOD)  and  incapacitation  benefits
be reinstated, and his case be processed through the  Disability  Evaluation
system (DES).  For an account of the  facts  and  circumstances  surrounding
his appeal and the Board's decision, see the  Record  of  Proceedings,  with
attachments, at Exhibit Q.

On 1 October 2001, the applicant submitted a request for reconsideration  of
his appeal.  He contended  that  the  wrong  Air  Force  office  of  primary
responsibility provided an advisory on  his  previous  case.   On  29  April
2002, the Board reconsidered and denied his appeal.   The  Addendum  to  the
Record of Proceedings, with attachments, is at Exhibit R.

On 20 September 2002, the applicant  submitted  an  additional  request  for
reconsideration  of  his  appeal.   Applicant  contends  that  the  act   of
returning him to duty with duty limitations  should  have  resulted  in  him
being medically retired at the end of  his  period  of  continuation.   DODI
1332.38 defines permanent limited duty as the continuation  on  active  duty
or in the Ready Reserve in a limited  duty  capacity  of  a  service  member
determined  unfit  as  a  result   of   physical   disability   or   medical
disqualification.   Enclosure  3  Part  3  (E3.P3.)  states  that  a  member
previously determined unfit  and  continued  in  a  permanent  limited  duty
status or otherwise continued on active duty, will normally be  found  unfit
at the expiration of his or her  period  of  continuation.   Therefore,  the
granting  of  his  transfer  to  non-participating  status  constituted  the
expiration of his "period of obligation" thus by definition he became  unfit
at the time he left participating status.   He  should  have  been  declared
unfit and processed for permanent disability retirement.  The Department  of
Veterans  Affairs  (DVA)  has  already  determined  his  disability  to   be
compensable at 60 percent.  Therefore, taking  together  the  aforementioned
provisions, he was  by  definition  unfit  with  a  60  percent  compensable
disability.

In  support  of  his  request,  applicant  provided  a  personal  statement;
documentation associated with  his  Line  of  Duty  Determination,  his  DVA
rating decision, and excerpts from DODI 1332.38.  His  complete  submission,
with attachments, is at Exhibit S.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Pursuant to the  Board’s  request,  the  BCMR  Medical  Consultant  reviewed
applicant's request and recommends denial.  The  Medical  Consultant  states
that the applicant equates his L3 profile, the Assignment  Limitation  Code-
C, and the Deployment Availability Code-41 as having been determined  to  be
medically disqualified and unfit.  The  applicant  was  not  in  a  "Limited
Assignment Status".  The term "Limited  Assignment  Status"  is  not  to  be
confused with Assignment Limitation Code-C or Deployment Availability  Code-
41, as the latter two are often applied to members with conditions  that  do
not render them unfit to perform the duties of their office  and  grade.   A
member with a medical condition that does not render them unfit  may  never-
the-less require assignment limitations.  This does  not  trigger  automatic
entry into the DES at the time of  separation  or  retirement.   It  appears
that his medical condition was not the reason his  Reserve  career  was  cut
short of attaining retirement eligibility.  Following a duty related  injury
he was determined to be fit for duty and was retained in the  Reserves.   He
elected to resign for "personal reasons".  He could have elected  to  remain
in the Reserves.  His Officer Performance Report (OPR)  closing  in  January
1998 reflected continued excellent duty performance providing evidence  that
his medical condition was not the reason  for  ending  his  Reserve  career.
The Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit T.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Counsel states that the primary emphasis of the advisory is  the  fact  that
the applicant voluntarily left the Reserves without  there  having  been  an
MEB to determine whether he was  unfit,  which  is  exactly  the  point  the
applicant is making.  He suffered a duty related injury, was  determined  to
not be deployable and not worldwide qualified.  During this period,  he  was
medically disqualified from performing any military duties.  The failure  to
process the applicant  through  the  DES  was  in  violation  of  Air  Force
policies.  The fact that he voluntarily  left  the  Reserves  following  the
refusal to send him to an  MEB  is  not  relevant.   He  left  the  Reserves
because of pain from his back injury  as  well  as  other  directly  related
medical problems  and  his  concern  that  they  would  interfere  with  his
military duties.  Thus, his leaving the Reserves  was  directly  related  to
the injury.  The Reserves recently decided  to  clean  house  and  initiated
MEBs on most members who were simply not worldwide  qualified  or  were  not
available for mobility.  The individuals  were  discharged  or  retired  for
disability.  The ability to do a job was not  a  consideration  or  concern.
In the applicant's case, these restrictions were irrelevant as  long  as  he
could sit at a desk.  The applicant was for all purposes unfit when  he  was
determined to be not worldwide qualified and was retained in a limited  duty
function.  DODI 1332.38 requires that members in  this  status  be  normally
found unfit at the end of that limited  duty  status.   While  there  is  no
official designation of "limited duty" the facts clearly show  that  he  was
in just this type of status.  Thus, in accordance with the DOD  Instruction,
he should have been determined unfit when he separated.

The applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit V.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  After again reviewing this application  and  the  evidence  provided  in
support of the appeal, we remain unpersuaded that the applicant's  condition
qualified him for DES consideration.  In his  most  recent  submission,  the
applicant asserts that he was in a "limited duty  status"  and  should  have
been medically retired when he resigned his civilian position with  the  Air
Force Reserves.  We disagree.  After reviewing  the  evidence  presented  in
support of his appeal, we do  not  find  his  or  his  counsel's  assertions
sufficiently persuasive to override  the  rationale  provided  by  the  BCMR
Medical Consultant and adopt his rationale as the basis for  our  conclusion
that the applicant has not been the victim of an  error  or  injustice.   We
see no evidence that his condition rendered him unable to  perform  military
duties commensurate with his  grade  and  position  nor  has  evidence  been
presented which would lead us to believe that the decision not to refer  the
applicant for MEB processing was made without  taking  all  the  appropriate
factors  into  consideration.   Therefore,  in  the  absence  of  persuasive
evidence to the contrary, we find no basis upon which to recommend  granting
the relief sought n 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  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 AFBCMR Docket Number  BC-2000-
00012 in Executive Session on 12 Jun 02, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

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

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit Q.  Record of Proceedings, dated 1 Mar 01,
                w/Exhibits A through H.
      Exhibit R.  Addendum to Record of Proceedings,
                dated 29 Apr 02, w/Exhibits I through P.
      Exhibit S.  Applicant’s Letter, dated 20 Sep 02, w/atchs.
      Exhibit T.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 12 Mar 03.
      Exhibit U.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 21 Apr 03.
      Exhibit V.  Counsel's Letter, dated 7 May 03.




                                   CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
                                   Panel Chair