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


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-1995-03416-2
            INDEX CODE:

            COUNSEL:  EUGENE R. FIDELL

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES


________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

In the  applicant’s  request  for  reconsideration,  he  requests  that  his
records be corrected to show he was retired because  of  disability  with  a
compensable rating of  100%,  rather  than  discharged  with  severance  pay
(DWSP) based on a compensable rating of 20%.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant was discharged with  an  honorable  discharge  on  25 February
1972.  He served 1 year, 8 months and 23 days.

On 30 October 1995, the applicant submitted an application  requesting  that
his medical discharge with severance pay (DWSP) be modified to show  medical
retirement.   On  1  August  1996,  the  Board  considered  and  denied  the
applicant’s request.  A complete copy of the Record  of  Proceedings  is  at
Exhibit F.

The applicant submitted an application dated 10  February  2003,  requesting
AF Form 356, Proceedings and Findings of  USAF  Physical  Evaluation  Board,
and AF Form 1190, Recommended Findings  of  Physical  Evaluation  Board,  be
changed to a  100%  compensable  percentage  of  disability,  with  no  EPTS
(existed prior to  service)  reduction.   In  support  of  his  request,  he
provided his 1969 and 1970  medical  records  which  document  that  he  was
commissioned despite the  clear  medical  finding  that  he  was  unfit  for
service; his 1972 medical examination which  documents  that  the  USAF  was
fully aware of his condition prior to his commissioning as a result  of  his
regular  treatment  in  USAF  clinics;  the  rating  scale  for  determining
bronchial asthma  disability  details  the  medical  criteria  used  by  the
federal government to classify  the  degree  of  disability;  and  a  signed
affidavit from his former wife.

Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit G.

On  2  August  2003,  applicant  requested  that  his  case  be  temporarily
withdrawn until he had sufficient time to prepare a proper  response.   Case
was withdrawn on 12 August 2003.

A copy of applicant’s letter is at Exhibit H.

Counsel for  the  applicant  submitted  a  letter  dated  23  January  2004,
forwarding the application (DD Form 149) of the  applicant  requesting  that
applicant’s records be corrected to reflect  a  60-100%  medical  disability
retirement.  In support of the appeal, he provided medical documents.

Counsel’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit I.

_______________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant stated on two occasions that  the  evidence  the
applicant  submits  does  not  constitute  new  and  material  evidence  and
duplicates evidence that was previously considered and is merely  cumulative
or redundant.  Action and disposition in this case are proper and  equitable
reflecting compliance with Air Force  directives  that  implement  the  law.
The BCMR Medical Consultant is of the opinion that no change in the  records
is warranted.

Complete copies of the evaluations are at Exhibits J and K.

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Counsel for the applicant submitted a statement indicating that  this  is  a
simple case.  The Air Force imposed an inappropriate medical waiver  on  the
applicant in clear violation of its own regulations, and did so without  his
knowledge.  Then, just 18 months later, a Physical  Evaluation  Board  (PEB)
used that waiver as the basis for reducing his  disability  rating  for  the
same condition because  it  was  pre-existing.   The  Air  Force  could  not
subsequently reduce applicant’s disability  rating  for  an  EPTS  condition
when it improperly commissioned him with that condition.  The only  question
now before the AFBCMR  is  whether  applicant’s  medical  record  should  be
corrected to reflect a  60-100  percent  medical  disability  retirement  on
February  25,  1972  (which  the  medical  evidence  clearly  supports),  or
alternatively, a 30 percent medical disability retirement on the  same  date
(a rating which the PEB erroneously established), but with no reduction  for
a pre-existing condition.

Counsel's response is at Exhibit M.

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided  by  existing  law  or
regulations.

2.  The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest  of
justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of  error  or  injustice.   After  again  reviewing  the  evidence
provided  in  support  of  the  appeal,  we  remain  unpersuaded  that   the
applicant’s records are in error or that  he  has  been  the  victim  of  an
injustice.   His  contentions  are  noted;  however,  in  our  opinion,  the
detailed  comments  provided  by  the  BCMR  Medical  Consultant  adequately
address the applicant’s allegations.  Therefore, we agree with opinions  and
recommendation of 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.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we  find
no compelling  basis  to  recommend  granting  the  relief  sought  in  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 24 January 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                       Mr. Charles E. Bennett, Panel Chair
                       Mr. Frederick R. Beaman III, Member
                       Mr. Michael J. Novel, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit F.  Record of Proceedings, dated 1 Aug 96,
                w/Exhibits.
      Exhibit G.  Applicant’s Application, dated 10 Feb 03,
                w/atchs.
    Exhibit H.  Applicant’s Letter, dated 2 Aug 03.
    Exhibit I.  Counsel’s Letter, dated 23 Jan 04, w/atchs.
      Exhibit J.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated
                16 Jul 03.
      Exhibit K.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated
                10 May 04.
      Exhibit L.  Letters, AFBCMR, dated 30 Jul 03 and 1 Sep 04.
      Exhibit M.  Counsel’s Letter, dated 28 Sep 04.




                                   CHARLES E. BENNETT
                                   Panel Chair