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


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-1986-02531
            INDEX CODE:  110.03
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His records be corrected to  reflect  that  he  did  not  separate  from
active duty on 25 Jun 92, but was continued on active duty in the  grade  of
captain,  and  was  promoted  to  the  grade  of  major   along   with   his
contemporaries, was tendered a Regular Air Force appointment,  and  assigned
to Charleston AFB, SC.

2.  In the alternative, he requests his  records  be  corrected  to  reflect
that he remained in the Air Force in the grade of captain,  was  tendered  a
Regular Air Force appointment, was assigned to Charleston AFB, SC,  and  was
retired in the grade of captain on 1 Jan 2002

3.  He be paid all back pay and allowances.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 13 Sep 85, he was honorably released from active duty as  result  of  two
nonselections for promotion to the grade of captain.   He  enlisted  in  the
Regular Air Force on 10 Dec 85.  On 25  Jun  92,  he  was  found  physically
unfit for continued military service and was discharged with severance  pay.
 He was credited with 14 years, 4 months, and 25 days and active service.

On 10 Jan 02, the Board granted his request that four Officer  Effectiveness
Reports be removed from his records and directed that he be promoted to  the
grade of captain.  The Board denied that portion of his request in which  he
requested continuation on active duty beyond 25 Jun 92.  For  an  accounting
of the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s requests and  the
rationale  of  the  earlier  decision  by  the  Board,  see  the  Record  of
Proceedings at Exhibit F.

In his request for reconsideration the applicant contends, in essence,  that
during his processing for medical separation  he  was  provided  inaccurate,
unfair, incomplete, and poor advice.  He was told by  the  medical  officers
that if he fought  the  separation  through  a  Formal  Physical  Evaluation
Board, the  board  would  most  likely  end  up  separating  him  with  less
disability than was recommended.  He  should  have  been  briefed  that  his
chain of command, which would have insisted on  his  retention,  could  have
spoken on his behalf to recommend retention.  Applicant later  learned  that
other options could have been taken instead of separation.   He  could  have
been allowed more post surgery healing time, he  could  have  been  assigned
less strenuous duties, or he  could  have  been  reclassified  into  another
career field.  The medical board that recommended separation was done  at  a
Naval hospital.  Had he been examined at an  Air  Force  facility  he  would
have been treated  differently  and  the  Air  Force  exam  would  not  have
resulted in a recommendation for separation.

The correction to his records by the AFBCMR adjusted his record  to  reflect
that he did not separate on 13 Sep 85 and enlist in the Air Force, but  that
he remained on active duty as a first lieutenant and  was  promoted  to  the
grade of captain.  Had the corrected error not been in his record  he  would
not have separated  and  enlisted  and  the  medical  problems  he  incurred
performing duties as a warehouseman  would  not  have  developed  and  there
would have been no medical separation.

After he was separated from the Air Force almost  immediate  and  continuous
improvement of his knee began.  He began employment as a  Detention  Officer
after his discharge.  He was given an extensive physical exam,  including  a
comprehensive stress test o  his  knee  and  passed  the  test  with  flying
colors.   In  his  position  he  walks  all  day  long  and  performs  other
physically demanding duties without incident.   Subsequent  examinations  by
civilian physicians show that his knee  is  now  completely  healed  proving
that had the Air Force allowed time for his knee  to  heal  he  never  would
have been medically separated.

In support of his  request,  applicant  provided  a  personal  statement,  a
chronology of events, documents extracted from  his  civilian  and  military
medical records, and documentation pertaining to his  post-service  military
training.  His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

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  medical
discharge  was  erroneous  or  unjust.    His  contentions   regarding   his
disability processing are duly noted; however, we are not persuaded  by  his
uncorroborated assertions of  miscounseling  that  errors  or  improprieties
existed in his disability processing, he was denied rights to which  he  was
entitled, or that he did not  receive  full  and  fair  consideration  under
disability evaluation guidelines.  Irrespective  of  this  Board's  previous
decision to correct his records and taking into consideration the "what  if"
scenario presented by the applicant, the fact  remains  that  the  applicant
was found unqualified for worldwide duty  and  unfit  for  further  military
service by competent  medical  authority.   His  current  medical  condition
aside, it remains  our  determination  that  his  separation  by  reason  of
physical disability was appropriate at the time it was  initiated  and  that
further change to his military record is not warranted.  Therefore, we  find
no basis upon which to favorably consider the requested relief.

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 Aug 04, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Charles E. Bennett, Panel Chair
      Mr. Jackson A. Hauslein, Member
      Mr. Frederick R. Beaman, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit F.  Fifth Addendum to Record of Proceedings,
                dated 10 Jan 02, w/with Exhibits.
      Exhibit G.  Applicant’s Letter, dated 9 Mar 04, w/atchs




                                   CHARLES E. BENNETT
                                   Panel Chair