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

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-1984-04083 &
                                                                     BC-
1991-02293
                                             INDEX CODE 108.01  108.10
110.02
       (Deceased)                            COUNSEL:  None

                                             HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her  late  husband’s  1984  general  [formerly   under-other-than-honorable-
conditions (UOTHC)] discharge be upgraded to honorable, he  be  retired  for
medical  disability,  and  she  be  awarded  his  full  benefits   and   pay
retroactive to 24 Apr 84.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

      Background:

      The late member enlisted in the Regular Air Force on  23  Jun  67.  He
had  two  tours  at  Urdorn Royal Thai AFB,   Thailand,  around  Jun-Dec  69
and Aug 71-Feb 72. During  the  period  in  question,  he  was  a  technical
sergeant (TSgt) (date of  rank  of  1 Oct  81)  assigned  as  an  operations
systems management specialist first to the 428th Tactical  Fighter  Squadron
(428 TFS) around May 77 and then to the 474th  Tactical  Fighter  Wing  (474
TFW), both at Nellis AFB, NV.

      Based on testimony given in an administrative  discharge  board  (ADB)
[see below], the member, having a 7-level proficiency rating in  his  Supply
Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC), was identified in the summer/fall  of  1980
as an overage and was placed in a new AFSC (System Operations). The AFSC  he
elected was the only one allowing him to remain  at  Nellis  AFB,  which  he
wanted to do in order to avoid moving  his  mother.  The  member  found  the
transition  stressful,  and   concurrent   family   and   marital   problems
exacerbated his difficulties.

      He was treated for anxiety with medication and seen  in  follow-up  on
several occasions in Dec 80. On 21 Jan 81, he was  diagnosed  as  moderately
depressed.  Antidepressant/relaxation   treatments   were   prescribed   and
continued through Feb  81.  On  23  Mar  81,  the  member  was  reported  as
achieving good progress and, on 21 Apr 81, no further problems  or  symptoms
were reported and treatment was
terminated. In Aug 81, medication and  psychotherapy  were  begun  following
the member’s complaint of anxiety in his  job  setting.  Excellent  progress
was noted on 11 Sep 81.

      A Classification Board convened on 1 Oct 81  because  the  member  had
exceeded  the  maximum  training  date  and  failed  the end-of-course  test
twice. The commander and supervisor indicated his job performance was  sound
and he had the support of fellow workers; however, he  had  reported  having
problems coping with job pressures  and  an  episode  of  passing  out.  The
commander noted inadequate training due  in  part  to  lack  of  a  training
program because of the transition from F4 to F16  aircraft.  Both  commander
and supervisor recommended the member not be continued in the new  AFSC  due
to his continuing medical problems and inability to cope with the  pressures
inherent in his specialty. The member confirmed his lack of  confidence  and
initiative to meet the demands required for system operations,  admitted  to
a lack of adequate training, and could not guarantee  his  medical  problems
would improve. He indicated he did not want to jeopardize  his  career.  The
majority of the board considered it in the best interests of the  Air  Force
and the member to retrain him into another AFSC.  However,  a  board  member
minority  report  recommended  he  receive   additional   on-the-job   (OJT)
training,  rather  than  retraining  into  another  AFSC.   The   Chief   of
Classification and Training Programs directed the member  be  reenrolled  in
the same AFSC, with reassessment if he failed to complete mandatory  upgrade
requirements.

      On 29 Jan 83, the member entered a bookstore in  a  suburban  shopping
mall, gave a note to a sales clerk claiming to be armed  [he  was  not]  and
demanding all the register’s tens, twenties and fives. The clerk did  as  he
asked and the member left the store. Twenty minutes later, he  was  arrested
by civil law enforcement authorities  and  charged  with  assault  with  the
intent to commit robbery at a bookstore. The member retraced his  steps  for
the police officer and signed a written confession.

      As a result of his arrest, the member was moved to  the  Orderly  Room
under the direct supervision of the First Sergeant.

      On 31 Jan 83, the member received a Letter  of  Counseling  (LOC)  for
substandard duty performance and a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for going  from
his appointed place of duty on 26 Jan 83 without authority.

       On  3  Feb  83,  a  command-directed  mental  health  evaluation  was
performed on the member for bizarre behavior believed related to the  felony
charge on 29 Jan 83. He was admitted for a two-day evaluation on  7  Feb  83
and, while no definitive diagnosis was made, the psychiatrist reported  that
recent  compulsive  behavior  suggested  a  manic  state  and  that  bipolar
disorder was “questionable/borderline.” The  psychiatrist  recommended  that
further outpatient evaluation be pursued.

      On 22 Feb 83, an Article 15 was imposed on the member  for  disobeying
a lawful order on 17 Feb 83 by leaving his duty station without  permission.
On 14 Mar 83, a Memo for Record (MFR)  reported  the  member  was  counseled
regarding his outstanding bad checks and overdrawn bank account.

      The member was tested in early Mar 83 for  diabetes  based  on  weight
loss as well as excessive thirst, drinking  and  urination.  The  first  two
blood tests had elevated  blood  sugar,  but  subsequent  blood/urine  tests
specifically for the presence of diabetes were normal. The weight  loss  was
attributed to stress.

      On 16  Aug  83,  two  MFRs  reported  the  member  was  counseled  for
excessive absence from duty and irresponsible and unprofessional actions.

      On 23 Aug 83, in the District Court of Clark County,  Las  Vegas,  NV,
the member pled guilty to the  charge  of  assault  with  intent  to  commit
robbery. Although normally considered a felony, the charge was reduced to  a
gross misdemeanor at trial due to his guilty plea and the victim’s  consent.
He was given a suspended sentence of  one  year  in  prison  and  placed  on
probation for an indeterminate period not to exceed three  years  and  fined
$500.

      A 9 Sep 83 MFR indicated the member  was  counseled  for  leaving  his
duty station without permission. On 13 Oct  83,  his  commander  recommended
discharge.

      On 15 Nov 83, the member married  the  applicant  (he  apparently  got
divorced from his previous wife in Feb 83).

      The member’s last clinical record was 29 Nov 83, when he was  seen  by
the mental health clinic at his own request to discuss his  legal  situation
(meeting an ADB).

      An ADB convened on 1-2 Dec 83 at  Nellis  AFB.  The  member’s  primary
presentation  was  that  the  robbery  was  a  one-time  aberration  and   a
manifestation of his lowest ebb in his battle  as  a  “compulsive  gambler.”
He testified that he wanted money in order to win more through gambling.  He
began attending Gamblers Anonymous on 16 Jan 83  (two  weeks  prior  to  the
robbery) and his commander acknowledged the member had resolved many of  his
financial problems. The  member  indicated  he  experienced  stress  due  to
family problems with his mother and his new marriage. The ADB recommended  a
UOTHC discharge, with  probation  and  rehabilitation  (P&R).  However,  two
members of the board filed  a  minority  report  disagreeing  with  the  P&R
recommendation.

      On 6 Jan 84, the 554th  Combat  Support  Group  Staff  Judge  Advocate
(SJA) provided a summary of proceedings and recommended  a  UOTHC  discharge
without P&R. The SJA added that the case should
be forwarded for lengthy service consideration. On 11 Jan 84,  the  HQ  USAF
Tactical Fighter Center SJA recommended a UOTHC discharge without  P&R.  The
convening authority did not  feel  P&R  was  appropriate  and  approved  the
discharge on 12 Jan 84. On 13 Feb 84, the Military Law Division chief at  HQ
Tactical Air Command (TAC) discussed the  pros  and  cons  of  P&R  for  the
member and concurred with the convening authority not to offer P&R.

      The member had approximately 16 years and 7 months of  active  service
when discharge action was initiated. As a result, on 10 Apr 84, he  received
lengthy service review for P&R  consideration.  The  Secretary  of  the  Air
Force (SecAF) designee directed that  the  approved  discharge  be  executed
with a UOTHC characterization.

      The member was discharged after 16 years, 10  months  and  2  days  of
active  service  in  the  grade  of  TSgt  on  24 Apr  84   with   a   UOTHC
characterization for Misconduct-Civilian Conviction.

      On 9 May 84, the member’s  probation  officer  petitioned  the  Nevada
District Court to discharge the member from further supervision  because  he
had satisfactorily completed all the conditions of probation. On 15 May  84,
the district court judge granted the petition, finding that  the  period  of
probation was completed and ordering the previous  finding  of  “Guilty”  be
changed to “Not Guilty.”

      On 15 May 84, a court order was issued  discharging  the  member  from
probation since he had satisfactorily completed all  of  the  conditions  of
probation. The previous finding of “Guilty” was changed to “Not Guilty.”

      On 26 Jun 84, the member submitted an appeal to the AFBCMR   (BC-1984-
04083), requesting reinstatement to active duty  in  order  to  complete  20
years of service. The Board denied the case  on  10 Apr  85.  In  1990,  the
member requested reconsideration of his original appeal  for  reinstatement,
as well as retirement for length of service and an upgraded  discharge  from
UOTHC to honorable. He provided additional evidence and contended, in  part,
that  the  Air  Force   disregarded   the   recommendation   of   the   1980
reclassification board hearing to return him to his former career  field  in
which he had excelled, and his superiors  prohibited  follow-up  psychiatric
treatment after his initial hospital stay in 1982. An advisory  opinion  was
obtained, which he did not rebut. On 29  Jan  91,  the  Board  upgraded  the
member’s UOTHC discharge to general on the basis of clemency.

      A copy of the Addendum Record of Proceedings (ROP) for  AFBCMR  Docket
No. BC-1984-04083, with Exhibits, is at Exhibit A1.

      In Apr 1991, the member submitted another appeal to  the  AFBCMR  (BC-
1991-02293) requesting the narrative reason for his discharge be changed  to
a medical discharge or disability retirement, he be  paid  for  48  days  of
unused accrued leave, the Dec 83 ADB  findings  be  overturned,  and  he  be
returned  to  active  duty/medical  leave  status  for   psychiatric/medical
treatment with  back  pay.  The  member  contended  that,  as  a  result  of
inadequate care by the medical/psychiatric staff and the  ignorance  of  his
commanding officers, he was driven by  intense  anxiety  and  depression  to
commit an act totally alien to him.  Advisory  opinions  were  obtained,  to
which the member, the applicant, and counsel responded.  On 22 Jan  92,  the
Board denied the appeal.

      A copy of the ROP for AFBCMR Docket No. BC-1984-04083, with  Exhibits,
is at Exhibit A2.

      The member’s Department of Veterans  Affairs  (DVA)  records  indicate
his  blood  tests  did  not  reveal  diabetes.  He  complained  of  anxiety,
depression, insomnia and repeated unemployment. In Nov 91, he was  found  to
have  chronic   anxiety   and   passive-dependent   personality   disorders,
hypertension, but no diabetes. A psychiatric evaluation in Apr 92  diagnosed
panic disorder with  agoraphobia  and  major  depression.  In  1994  he  was
diagnosed as having bipolar disorder and was treated with lithium. A Dec  97
psychiatric  evaluation  noted  the  member  reported  he   and   his   wife
[presumably the applicant] had separated five years ago [they reconciled  in
1998] and he had not worked in ten years. The psychiatrist opined  that  the
initial diagnosis of panic disorder was really a part or a manifestation  of
the bipolar disorder and, with  the  successful  treatment  of  the  bipolar
disorder, the anxiety disorder was effectively treated. Periods  of  alcohol
abuse were noted. The diagnosis was bipolar affective disorder in  remission
with medication.

      The member was diagnosed with pancreatic  cancer  around  Dec  98.  On
26 Mar 01,  he  died  of  complications  (weakness  and  malnutrition)  from
advanced pancreatic cancer and treatment.

      On 29 May 02, the DVA granted service  connection  for  the  cause  of
death on a contributory basis. This  was  based  on  a  psychiatric  opinion
confirming the member suffered from alcohol abuse, which was exacerbated  by
his  service-related  post-traumatic  stress  disorder  (PTSD)   and   other
psychiatric problems, and that the alcohol abuse probably contributed to  or
hastened his death from pancreatic cancer.

      Reconsideration Request:

      On 17 Jun 03, the applicant requested that her late husband’s  general
discharge be upgraded to honorable, he be retired  for  medical  disability,
and she be awarded back pay and full  benefits  effective  24  Apr  84.  She
contended her late husband’s exposure to Agent  Orange  in  Thailand  caused
him to develop Type II (adult onset) Diabetes, which  was  dormant  in  1980
but surfaced with the overwhelming stress he sustained when  the  Air  Force
reclassified him. His uncontrolled blood sugars provoked his  totally  alien
behavior. While on active duty, her late husband  suffered  severe  episodes
of dementia caused by the seesaw effect of his blood  sugars.  She  contends
no one bothered to discover why a fine  TSgt  would  suddenly  walk  into  a
bookstore and rob it. His traumatic discharge drove him  to  alcohol  abuse,
which caused the pancreatic cancer.  Her  husband  was  denied  medical  and
mental assistance for years from the Department of  Veterans  Affairs  (DVA)
because of his adverse discharge. The Air Force should have  recognized  her
husband’s exposure to Agent Orange,  the  effects  of  his  unwanted  career
change, and the totally uncharacteristic behavior and helped him.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant provides details extracted from  the  member’s
medical records  with  regard  to  his  military/medical  issues.  After  an
elevated blood sugar on 1 Mar 83, repeat blood testing specifically for  the
presence of diabetes was normal. Urinalyses performed on 2 Nov  78,  18  Dec
82 and 1 Mar 83 were negative for the  presence  of  sugar,  an  abnormality
expected in the presence of diabetes at that time. In  addition,  urinalyses
performed 2 Nov 78, 18 Dec 82 and 1 Mar 83 were negative  for  the  presence
of sugar, an abnormality expected in the  presence  of  untreated  diabetes.
Further medical evaluation, including as an inpatient in Mar 83,  identified
stress as the reason for the member’s weight loss  and  diagnosed  no  other
medical illnesses. A DVA evaluation in Nov 91 diagnosed hypertension but  no
diabetes. At  the  time,  the  member  denied  a  history  and  symptoms  of
diabetes. Lab testing on  28  Jan  92  showed  blood  sugar  to  be  normal,
consistent with the absence of diabetes. In 1994, the member  was  diagnosed
as having bipolar disorder and treated with  lithium.  In  Jan  99,  he  was
diagnosed with pancreatic cancer and died  from  this  disease  in  Mar  01.
Issues of compulsive gambling, access to mental health  care,  propriety  of
the discharge action, and whether the member should have been  evaluated  in
the disability system at the  time  of  discharge  have  been  addressed  in
previous AFBCMR decisions and no new evidence has been submitted. Review  of
the service and DVA medical  records  through  1992  shows  no  evidence  of
diabetes. The single elevated blood sugar noted above was properly  followed
up by Air Force physicians with further testing,  which  excluded  diabetes.
DVA medical evaluation also showed no evidence  of  diabetes  for  at  least
eight years after the member’s discharge. As the evidence strongly leads  to
the conclusion that the member did not have diabetes from  any  cause  while
on active, denial is recommended.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant contends, as a diabetic herself, that her  husband’s  elevated
blood sugar episode was not  properly  followed  up  by  the  Air  Force.  A
“competent” doctor would have monitored her  husband’s  blood  sugar  levels
daily for at least four weeks. Based  on  his  “crazy”  mood  swings,  she’s
convinced her husband had bipolar disorder while he was on active duty.  The
multiple stressors inflicted on him by the  military  caused  the  disorder.
“Someone” pushed for a dishonorable discharge rather than follow  the  ADB’s
recommendation for P&R. The tumors on  his  pancreas  were  already  forming
around 1980, before he left the military. She has “connected all  the  dots”
proving that her late husband was  mistreated,  misdiagnosed,  ignored,  and
stressed to the point that his career and health were damaged.

The applicant’s complete review is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

After carefully considering the circumstances  of  this  case,  we  are  not
persuaded the late member’s records  should  be  changed  as  the  applicant
requests. We do not dispute her late husband was extremely troubled  by  his
AFSC transition; however, like many military members who must change  career
fields, he was required to retrain and adjust. He elected the  AFSC  he  did
because it was the only one that allowed him to remain at Nellis, which  was
his desire. The 29  Jan  83  incident,  while  extreme,  was  not  the  only
instance of his misconduct. During the Dec  83  ADB,  the  member  disclosed
that he was  overwhelmed  by  personal  stress  from  family  and  financial
problems, as well as the career change. He had taken to gambling as  a  form
of release. However, the gambling soon became an obsession, not  the  relief
sought, and he committed the assault with intent  to  commit  robbery  as  a
means to obtain money to continue gambling. The  applicant  contends,  among
other things, the presence of medical conditions at the  time  of  her  late
husband’s discharge should have taken  precedence  over  his  administrative
discharge and resulted in  an  honorable  medical  retirement.  However,  as
noted by the Medical Consultant, the  available  records  reflect  the  late
member experienced, and was treated for, periods of anxiety  and  depression
and made progress. They also reveal repeated blood  tests  specifically  for
diabetes were normal, as was a fasting blood sugar and repeated  urinalyses.
Hospitalization in Mar 83 identified stress as the reason for  the  member’s
weight loss and  no  other  medical  illnesses  were  diagnosed.  Review  of
service and DVA medical records through 1992 show no evidence  of  diabetes,
and evaluation by DVA physicians also indicate no evidence of  diabetes  for
at least eight years after the late member’s discharge. We  agree  with  the
Medical Consultant’s opinion that the available documentation leads  to  the
conclusion the applicant’s late husband  did  not  have  diabetes  from  any
cause while on active duty. Title  10,  USC,  Chapter  61,  is  the  federal
statute charging the Service Secretaries to maintain a fit and vital  force.
For an individual to be considered unfit for military  service,  there  must
be a medical condition so severe that it prevents performance  of  any  work
commensurate  with  rank  and  experience.  That  did  not  apply  in   this
situation. While her husband appeared to have had some physical  and  mental
conditions, they did not render him medically unfit at that  time.  Congress
recognized that a person could acquire physical  conditions  that,  although
not unfitting at the time of separation, may later progress in severity  and
alter the individual’s lifestyle and future  employability.   With  this  in
mind, Title 38, USC, which governs the DVA compensation system, was  written
to  allow  awarding  compensation  ratings  for  conditions  that  are   not
unfitting for military service. The DVA may increase or decrease a  member’s
disability  rating  based  on  the  seriousness  of  the  medical  condition
throughout his/her life span. This is the reason why an  individual  can  be
found fit for duty and yet years later  receive  a  disability  compensation
rating from the DVA. We offer the applicant our sincere  sympathies  on  the
death of her husband, and can understand her grief may  seek  to  hold  some
entity responsible. However, her submission and the evidence  of  record  do
not compel us to find the Air Force culpable in this  sad  case.  Therefore,
we have no recourse but to conclude the applicant’s requested relief  should
be denied.

The documentation provided with this case was sufficient to give  the  Board
a clear understanding of the issues  involved  and  a  personal  appearance,
with or without legal counsel, would  not  have  materially  added  to  that
understanding.  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 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 11 February 2004 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
                 Ms. Ann-Cecile McDermott, Member
                 Ms. Leslie E. Abbott, Member

The following documentary evidence relating to  AFBCMR  Docket  Numbers  BC-
1984-04083 & BC-1991-02293 was considered:

      Exhibit A1. Addendum ROP, dated 25 Feb 91, w/atchs.
      Exhibit A2. ROP dated 6 Feb 02, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B.  Member’s Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Applicant's DD Form 149, dated 17 Jun 03,
                                        w/atchs.
      Exhibit D.  AFBCMR Medical Consultant’s Advisory,
                                        dated 15 Dec 03.
      Exhibit E.  AFBCMR Letter, dated 16 Dec 03.
      Exhibit F.  Applicant’s Letter, dated 17 Jan 03.



                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Chair