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


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2001-01712
            INDEX CODE:  110.02

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

In the applicant’s request for reconsideration, he requests his under  other
than honorable conditions (UOTHC)  discharge  be  changed  to  a  disability
separation.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 22 May 1991, while serving in the grade of technical sergeant,  applicant
was discharged from the Air Force under the provisions  of  AFR  39-10  with
service characterized as UOTHC, with a reason for separation  of  misconduct
– civilian conviction.  He was credited with 13 years, 5 months, and 6  days
of total active service.  On 23 March 1998, the Air Force  Discharge  Review
Board (AFDRB) found that neither evidence of record, nor  that  provided  by
the  applicant,  substantiated  an  inequity  or  impropriety,  which  would
justify a change in the discharge.

A similar appeal was considered and  denied  by  the  Air  Force  Board  for
Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR) on 13 November 2001.  A  summary  of
the evidence considered by the Board and the rationale for its  decision  is
set forth in the Record of Proceedings, including exhibits, is  attached  at
Exhibit H.

In his  request  for  reconsideration,  applicant  now  requests  his  UOTHC
discharge be changed to a disability separation.  He contends  that  he  was
diagnosed with multiple sclerosis (MS) in March 1990 and was offered an  80%
disability rating; however he refused.  No treatment was given for MS  while
he was on active duty.  He believes had he received  treatment  for  MS,  he
could have been helped.  In support of his  appeal,  applicant  submitted  a
medical summary requested  by  his  physician  at  the  South  Dakota  State
Penitentiary.

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

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant reviewed this application and  recommended  that
no change in the records is warranted.  The applicant  was  administratively
discharged with a UOTHC from the Air Force  in  accordance  with  Air  Force
policy and procedure due  to  civilian  conviction  of  a  serious  offense,
murder.   In  a  few  years  prior  to  discharge,   applicant   experienced
increasing problems and debt related to a gambling problem and as  a  result
was already pending administrative discharge proceedings at the time of  the
offense for which he was convicted in civilian court.   In  1989,  applicant
was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis based  on  intermittent,  sensory  and
mild motor symptoms  occurring  since  November  1986  consistent  with  the
relapsing/remitting  form  of  multiple   sclerosis.    Complete   neurology
evaluation concluded the applicant was not impaired in  the  performance  of
his military duties and a Medical Evaluation Board  concurred  and  retained
the applicant on duty.  Applicant’s performance confirm applicant’s  disease
did  not  impair  the  performance  of  his  military   duties.    Neurology
evaluation,  mental  health  evaluations  and  performance  reports  do  not
reflect evidence  of  cognitive  difficulties  that  may  be  attributed  to
multiple sclerosis.  In the setting  of  the  applicant’s  gambling  related
difficulties and marital problems he was noted to  have  depressed  mood  by
mental health professionals but not diagnosed with  a  depressive  disorder.
Evidence  of  record  suggests  that  the  civilian  court  considered   the
applicant’s medical problem including a civilian neurological evaluation.

At the time  applicant  was  in  the  Air  Force  and  diagnosed  with  mild
relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis, there was no  established  treatment
to prevent relapses.  Corticosteroids were used for severe acute  flares  to
hasten recovery, but were not shown to affect the long term outcome  of  the
disease.  In the case  of  the  relapsing/remitting  pattern  the  applicant
manifested, patients often go many years without  demonstrating  significant
impairments and therefore  the  use  of  toxic  medications  with  uncertain
benefit was not  standard  of  care.   Applicant  was  properly  treated  in
accordance with the standards of medical care at the time.

While multiple sclerosis can cause numerous cognitive impairments,  isolated
pathological gambling and in particular commission of  serious  crimes  such
as first  degree  murder  is  not  consistent  with  the  cognitive  defects
observed in  multiple  sclerosis.   There  is  no  evidence  of  significant
cognitive impairments at the time of his offense that would be  expected  to
accompany significant loss of multiple  controls  that  could  result  in  a
legal defense to a charge of murder.  Specifically  ,there  is  no  evidence
the applicant’s  brain  disease  affected  his  ability  to  comprehend  the
wrongfulness of his criminal conduct or impaired his ability to  choose  the
right.  Action and  disposition  in  this  case  are  proper  and  equitable
reflecting compliance with Air Force directives that implement the law.

BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit J.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant submitted a letter  of  explanation  in  regard  to  his  original
contentions and the specific circumstances surrounding  his  misconduct  and
subsequent discharge.

Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit L.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

After again reviewing this application and the evidence provided in  support
of his appeal, we remain unpersuaded that the  applicant’s  UOTHC  discharge
be changed to a disability separation.  The evidence of record reflects  the
applicant received nonjudicial punishment for leaving  his  appointed  place
of duty without authority and  was  subsequently  discharged  by  reason  of
misconduct-civilian conviction (1st degree murder).  However,  we  found  no
evidence which would lead us to believe that the applicant's  separation  or
reason for separation were in error or contrary to the governing  Air  Force
regulations, which implement the law.   Additionally,  while  the  applicant
did experience medical problems while on active duty, we found  no  evidence
that  his  medical  condition  was  consistent  with  the  misconduct  which
subsequently led to  his  discharge.   Applicant’s  case  has  undergone  an
exhaustive review by the BCMR Medical Consultant and  there  is  nothing  in
the evidence provided by the applicant that would  overcome  his  assessment
of the case.  Therefore, we agree with  his  recommendation  and  adopt  the
rationale expressed as the basis for our decision  that  the  applicant  has
failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered  either  an  error  or  an
injustice.  In the absence of persuasive 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 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-2001-
01712 in Executive Session on 24 May 2007, under the provisions of  AFI  36-
2603:

      Ms. B. J. White-Olson, Panel Chair
      Ms. Glenda H. Scheiner, Member
      Mr. Mark J. Novitski, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit H.  Record of Proceedings, dated 13 Nov 2001,
                  with Exhibits.
      Exhibit I.  Reconsideration Package (DD Form 293, dated
                  13 Mar 06), with attachments.
      Exhibit J.  Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated
                  2 Mar 07.
      Exhibit K.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Mar 07.
      Exhibit L.  Applicant’s letter, dated 20 Mar 07, with
                  attachments.




                                   B. J. WHITE-OLSON
                                   Panel Chair