THIRD 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 mandatory separation date be nullified and he be processed  through  the
Disability Evaluation System (DES).

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 1 March 2001, the Board considered and  denied  the  applicant's  request
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 DES.   He  contended  that  in  accordance
with DoD guidance  he  should  have  been  rendered  permanently  unable  to
perform his duties and processed through the 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 I.

On 1 October 2001, the applicant submitted a  request  for  reconsideration.
In his request, counsel  contended  that  the  wrong  Air  Force  office  of
primary responsibility provided an advisory on his previous  case.   Instead
of obtaining advisories from AFRC/DPM and  AF/JAG,  the  office  of  primary
responsibility  at  AFPC  should  have  provided  an  advisory.   The  Board
obtained advisories from AFPC/DPPD and AFPC/JA  recommending  denial.   DPPD
forwarded his file to the Informal Physical Evaluation Board  (IPEB)  for  a
courtesy review and the IPEB determined the likely result  would  have  been
return to duty.  On 29 April 2002, the Board reconsidered and  again  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 contending 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 in accordance with  DoD  guidance.   The  BCMR
Medical Consultant provided an evaluation recommending denial.   On  17  Jun
03, the  Board  reconsidered  and  again  denied  his  appeal.   The  Second
Addendum to the Record of Proceedings is at Exhibit W.

In his most  recent  request  for  reconsideration,  applicant  contends  he
should not  have  been  assigned  to  the  Non-participating  Ready  Reserve
Section (NNRPS) in January 1998.  AFI 36-2115 states "NNRPS-ND  is  made  up
of officers and enlisted personnel without  a  Military  Service  Obligation
(MOS) who qualify for duty worldwide."  At  the  time  he  was  assigned  to
NNRPS, he was and still is not qualified for worldwide  duty  in  accordance
with ARPC/SGPA memorandum dated 21 May 97.  The memorandum  was  the  result
of a back injury and subsequent surgeries suffered in the line  of  duty  on
14 Oct 95 that returned him to a permanent limited duty status  after  being
medically disqualified from any military duty from 24 Jan 96 to 21  May  97.
It remains  his  belief  that  regulations  required  he  be  processed  for
discharge or disability retirement rather than being assigned to the NNRPS.


His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit X.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ARFC/A1B  states  after  a  review  of  assignments  policy,  it  has   been
determined that applicant should not have  been  voluntarily  reassigned  to
NNRPS at the time, as he was not qualified for worldwide duty.   Rather,  he
should have been involuntarily  reassigned  to  the  Non-Affiliated  Reserve
Section (NARS) for  medical  reasons.   This  administrative  error  has  no
effect  on  his  eligibility  to  enter  the  DES.   Had  he  been  properly
reassigned, he would have been  transferred  to  the  Inactive  Status  List
Reserve Section (ISLRS) after two years in that  status.   Although  he  was
erroneously assigned to NNRPS, he was ultimately  transferred  to  ISLRS  as
appropriate, has reached the maximum  time  in  that  status,  must  now  be
considered for discharge, and has been notified of his options.

His military treating physician stated there was no need for him to  undergo
MEB processing and  recommended  he  be  returned  to  duty.   As  has  been
previously explained, the inability to perform duties  in  every  geographic
location is not the basis  for  a  finding  of  unfitness.   Therefore,  his
contention that he should be processed through the DES remains unfounded.

The complete A1B evaluation is at Exhibit Y.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant responded that he has provided more than  adequate  medical  proof
that he has not been medically fit for duty to  the  Air  Force  on  several
occasions in the past.  This is clearly demonstrated in  his  Department  of
Veterans Affairs examination on 17 Dec 99.  Air  Force  opinions  concerning
his case have been based on one single half hour exam done  on  15  Apr  97,
which was obviously misdiagnosed since  he  had  to  undergo  a  third  back
operation on 10 Mar 99.  He is still  under  treatment  for  the  unresolved
injury and this fact has never been addressed  in  the  numerous  Air  Force
advisory opinions.

The applicant's complete response is at Exhibit AA.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  After  again  reviewing  the  applicant's  request  and   the   evidence
provided, we are not persuaded  by  the  applicant's  contentions  that  his
records should be corrected to  show  he  was  processed  through  the  DES.
After careful consideration of the applicant's submission it is our  opinion
that the Air Force Reserve Command has adequately addressed  his  contention
that  he  should  not  have  been  assigned  to  the  NNRPS  and  that   the
administrative error has no bearing on whether or not he  should  have  been
processed through the DES.  Therefore, other than his own assertions, it  is
our determination that no evidence has been provided  which  would  convince
us that reversal of previous determinations regarding his  request  for  DES
consideration is warranted.  Accordingly, we find no  basis  upon  which  to
recommend granting the relief sought in 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 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 23 Apr 06, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

      Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
      Mr. Todd L. Schafer, Member
      Mrs. Barbara J. White-Olson, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit W.  Second Addendum to the Record of Proceedings,
                dated 29 Apr 02, w/Exhibits
      Exhibit X.  DD Form 149, dated 7 Mar 06, w/atchs.
      Exhibit Y.  Letter, AFRC/A1B, dated 25 Oct 06, w/atchs.
      Exhibit Z.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Oct 06.
      Exhibit AA. Letter, Applicant dated 13 Nov 06.
      Exhibit BB. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 17 Nov 06.
      Exhibit CC. Letter, Applicant, dated 30 Mar 07, w/atchs.




                                   CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
                                   Panel Chair