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


IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-1998-01124
                                              INDEX   CODE:    108.01,
108.02

      XXXXXXX                           COUNSEL:  NONE

                                             HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

In the applicant’s appeal for reconsideration, he  requests  his  1975
honorable  discharge  from   Basic   Military   Training   (BMT)   for
disqualifying mild sustained hypertension be changed to a 100%  rating
for service-connected schizophrenia, post  traumatic  stress  disorder
(PTSD), costochondritis, and low back pain,  presumably  with  medical
retirement.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered active duty on 29 Oct  75.   On  10 Nov  75,  he
presented to the clinic with complaints  of  chest  pain  subsequently
diagnosed as costochondritis. He was prescribed  Valium  for  anxiety.
On a follow-up visit on 20 Nov 75,  an  elevated  blood  pressure  was
noted.  Of the 20 blood pressure measurements,  15  showed  abnormally
elevated results.  The applicant was referred  for  internal  medicine
evaluation;  electrocardiogram,  chest  x-ray,  and  urinalysis   were
normal.  The  26 Nov  75  Medical  Evaluation  Board  (MEB)  narrative
summary diagnosed mild sustained hypertension that  existed  prior  to
service (EPTS) and was disqualifying for  military  service.   Service
medical records also document complaints of back pain, ankle pain, and
blisters on his hands and feet.  Service  medical  documents  make  no
reference to a specific trauma associated with the  applicant’s  chest
or back pain.  After one month and seven days of active  service,  the
applicant was honorably discharged from basic military training  (BMT)
on 5 Dec 75 for disqualifying mild sustained hypertension, a condition
determined to have EPTS and not aggravated by service.

In his original 1998 appeal to the AFBCMR, the applicant requested his
honorable discharge be changed to a medical disability  discharge.  He
contended the medical problems that  disqualified  him  for  continued
service and the physical and mental conditions he suffers  from  today
were the result of beatings he allegedly received from his  BMT  drill
instructor.  He included newspaper clippings indicating  he  had  been
convicted  of  killing  an  82-year  old  jeweler  in  1977.   An  FBI
investigative report obtained by the AFBCMR Staff  confirmed  that  in
1978 the applicant was  convicted  and  imprisoned  for  burglary  and
murder.  Military medical records available to the Board contained  no
reference to or treatment of traumatic injuries or  abuse.  On  16 Mar
99, the Board  considered  and  denied  his  appeal  due  to  lack  of
evidence.

For an accounting of  the  facts  and  circumstances  surrounding  the
applicant’s separation and the rationale of the original  decision  by
the Board, see the Record of Proceedings (ROP) at Exhibit H.

The applicant requested reconsideration in Apr and May 99,  submitting
numerous letters to various government officials and agencies, as well
as statements from other individuals.  One of the statements was  from
an individual (Mr. E---)  who  asserted  he  saw  a  drill  instructor
assault the applicant and "signed a police report on  this  matter  in
1975 for the airforce [sic] police." However, the Air Force Office  of
Special Investigations (AFOSI) advised the AFBCMR Staff there  was  no
record of the incident and, if there had been  an  investigation,  the
report would no longer exist as files of  this  nature  are  routinely
destroyed after 15 years. On 17 Jun 99, the  Board  again  denied  the
applicant's request because he had not provided sufficient evidence to
support his allegations.

For an accounting of the  facts  and  the  rationale  of  the  Board’s
decision, see the Addendum to the ROP (AROP) at Exhibit J.

The applicant again requested  reconsideration  and  submitted,  among
other things, a letter from  an  attorney  who  assisted  the  defense
lawyer during the applicant’s 1978 trial for murder.   A  doctor  with
the Rhode Island Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA)  Medical  Center
advised the applicant had been diagnosed with chronic schizo-affective
disorder. The applicant’s stepmother also submitted  a  letter.  In  a
separate submission, the  applicant  provided  an  unsigned  May  2001
letter to the DVA written, at  his  request,  by  a  Rhode  Island  US
Magistrate Judge who represented him in his murder  trial.  The  judge
indicated he had no recollection he saw or was even aware of the  1978
letters the applicant provided regarding his schizophrenia. The  judge
included  copies  of  these  letters.   The  Board  again  denied  the
applicant’s appeal on 12 June 2002.

For an accounting of the  facts  and  the  rationale  of  the  Board’s
decision, see the 2nd AROP at Exhibit L.

On 8 Jul 04, the DVA granted  the  applicant  service  connection  for
schizophrenia, rated 100% effective 2 Oct 99, the date he first  filed
his DVA claim.  The decision noted the treatment for  anxiety  in  the
service and the 22 May 04 opinion of a DVA
examination that concluded the applicant suffered  from  schizophrenia
either during his military  service  or,  more  likely,  in  the  year
following military service in 1976.

In  a  DD  Form  149  dated  2  Sep  04,   the   applicant   requested
reconsideration, and  submitted  his  100%  DVA  rating  for  service-
connected schizophrenia, 24 years after his  discharge  from  the  Air
Force.  A 22 Jun 04 evaluation, provided with the  rating,  questioned
the accuracy of the applicant’s military medical records, particularly
regarding the hypertension issue.  Further, while the military records
did not indicate his medical problems were caused by physical  trauma,
examinations  by  another  physician  and   psychiatrist   found   the
applicant’s allegations credible.  The evaluation concluded it was  as
likely as not the applicant suffered from schizophrenia, either during
his military service or, more likely, one year following the discharge
and continuing to the present.

A complete copy of the applicant’s application, with  attachments,  is
at Exhibit M.

The  applicant  continued  to  submit  letters  and/or  duplicates  of
documents already submitted.   Copies  of  these  submissions  are  at
Exhibit N.
_________________________________________________________________

AFBCMR MEDICAL CONSULTANT EVALUATION:

Pursuant to  a  request  by  the  AFBCMR  Staff,  the  AFBCMR  Medical
Consultant provided an evaluation recommending denial.  The Consultant
provided  additional  medical  details   regarding   the   applicant’s
condition and advises the Military Disability Evaluation System (MDES)
and the DVA operate under separate laws.  The Consultant explains  the
differences between the MDES, which operates under Title 10,  and  the
DVA, which operates under Title 38.  In order  to  establish  “service
connection,” there only need be some link or nexus of  the  particular
condition  with  the  veteran’s  military   service.    This   differs
substantially from the requirement that the condition be unfitting  at
the time for military disability compensation.  The mere fact that the
DVA  may  grant  service  connected  compensation  ratings  does   not
establish eligibility for similar action from the Air Force.  By  law,
payment of DVA disability compensation and military disability pay for
the same medical condition or disability is prohibited.  The applicant
was discharged due to the  finding  of  disqualifying  elevated  blood
pressures after less than one month of  service,  determined  to  have
EPTS.  Although he experienced a variety of other symptoms, none  were
considered disqualifying for continued military service  at  the  time
and therefore would not qualify for  consideration  by  an  MEB.   The
applicant reported a pre-service history of chest pain  attributed  to
nerves, was prescribed Valium for  anxiety  associated  with  pain,  a
common symptom in basic trainees who successfully  complete  training.
His medical service records do not reflect evidence  of  schizophrenia
while in the Air Force.  The DVA  psychiatric  evaluation  in  May  04
concluded the applicant most likely  manifested  schizophrenia  during
the year following his separation  from  military  service,  and  that
manifestation of schizophrenia while in the service was  less  likely.
No change in the applicant’s records is warranted.

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit O.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF EVALUATION:

The AFBCMR  Medical  Consultant’s  evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the
applicant on 31 Mar 05 (Exhibit P) for review and  comment  within  30
days.  In letters dated 30 Mar 05 and 1, 4, 5, and 6 Apr  05  (Exhibit
Q), the applicant responded to the advisory opinion and requested  his
case be temporarily withdrawn.  The AFBCMR Staff advised the applicant
by letter dated 14 Apr 05 (Exhibit R) that, per his request, his  case
had been temporarily closed.

In a DD Form 149 dated 16 Jun 06, the applicant requested his case  be
reconsidered for 100% service-connected disability.  He reiterated his
claims that his drill instructor verbally,  physically,  and  sexually
assaulted him and caused his medical problems.  The applicant provided
additional documents that were received on 27 Jun and 6  Jul  06.   He
also appeared to be dissatisfied with the medication prescribed by the
DVA, contending it caused his diabetes.

The DD Form 149  and  other  submissions,  with  attachments,  are  at
Exhibit S.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

After carefully reviewing the extensive  documentation  pertaining  to
this appeal, we are not persuaded relief  is  warranted.   In  Jul 04,
nearly 29 years after his discharge, the  DVA  granted  the  applicant
service connection for schizophrenia, rated 100%, effective 2 Oct  99,
the date he first filed his  DVA  claim.   The  applicant  requests  a
similar rating from the Air Force.  However, he  was  discharged  from
service due to the finding of disqualifying  hypertension  after  less
than one month of service, which was determined to have existed  prior
to service.  His other symptoms were not considered disqualifying  for
continued military service at the time and therefore did  not  qualify
for consideration  by  an  MEB.  The  applicant’s  available  military
medical records do  not  reflect  evidence  of  schizophrenia  or  the
traumatic injuries he alleged occurred while in the  Air  Force.   The
DVA psychiatric evaluation in May  04  concluded  the  applicant  most
likely  manifested  schizophrenia  during  the  year   following   his
separation  from  military  service,   and   that   manifestation   of
schizophrenia while in the service was less likely.  The MDES and  the
DVA operate under two different systems.  The MDES, governed by  Title
10, USC, Chapter 61, can only offer  compensation  for  those  service
incurred diseases or injuries which  specifically  rendered  a  member
unfit for continued active service, were the cause for termination  of
their career, and then only for the degree of  impairment  present  at
the time of separation.  The mere presence of a medical condition does
not qualify a member for disability evaluation.  For an individual  to
be considered unfit for military service,  there  must  be  a  medical
condition that prevents performance of any work commensurate with rank
and experience.  Once an  individual  has  been  declared  unfit,  the
Service Secretaries are required by law to rate the condition based on
the degree of disability at the time of permanent disposition and  not
on future events.  In the applicant’s case, only his hypertension  was
disqualifying for military service at that  time  and  not  his  other
symptoms.  Because the hypertension was  determined  to  have  existed
prior to service, it was non-compensable under the rules of the  MDES.
However, 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.  Title 38, USC, which governs  the  DVA  system,
allows awarding compensation for acquired and altered conditions  that
were not unfitting for military service but could  affect  a  person’s
life style and future employability.  The DVA may increase or decrease
a member’s disability rating based on the seriousness of  the  medical
condition throughout his/her life span. The mere fact that the DVA may
grant  service  connected  compensation  ratings  does  not  establish
eligibility for similar action from the Air Force.  Further,  by  law,
payment of DVA disability compensation and military disability pay for
the same medical condition or disability is prohibited.  We  therefore
agree  with   the   AFBCMR   Medical   Consultant’s   evaluation   and
recommendation, as well as with the decisions rendered by the previous
Boards.  Absent persuasive evidence  to  the  contrary,  we  find  the
applicant has not been the victim of either an error or injustice  and
his appeal should again be denied.

_________________________________________________________________

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 13 and 15 September 2006, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:

                             Mr. Michael J. Maglio, Panel Chair
                             Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Member
                             Mr. Gary G. Sauner, Member

The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
1998-01124 was considered:

   Exhibit L.  2nd AROP, dated 27 Jun 02
   Exhibit M.  DD Form 149, dated 2 Sep 04, w/atchs.
   Exhibit N.  Applicant’s Submissions, dated/received 8 Sep 04,
                                  19 Jan 05, 22 Jan  05,  24  Jan  05,
25 Jan 05,
                                   26 Jan  05  w/24 Nov  04  DVA  Ltr,
27 Jan 05,
                                  30 Jan  05,  14 Feb  05,  17 Feb  05
w/30 Jul 04 DVA
                                  Ltr, 8 Mar 05 w/Congressional 22 Feb
05 Ltr,
                                        w/atchs.
   Exhibit O.  AFBCMR Medical Consultant’s Ltr, dated 30 Mar 05.
   Exhibit P.  AFBCMR Letter, dated 31 Mar 05.
   Exhibit Q.  Applicant’s Letters, 30 Mar 05; and 1, 3, 4, 5,
                                        and 6 Apr 05, w/atchs.
   Exhibit R.  AFBCMR Letter, dated 14 Apr 05.
   Exhibit S.  DD Form 149, dated 16 Jun 06, w/atchs; and
                                          Additional    Correspondence
received 27 Jun
                                        and 6 Jul 06.




                                   MICHAEL J. MAGLIO
                                   Panel Chair