UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

DONALD L. WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

No. 95-2936

SHIRLEY S. CHATER, COMMISSIONER OF

SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill.

Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge.

(CA-92-3400-19BD)

Submitted: November 7, 1996

Decided: November 21, 1996

Before RUSSELL and WIDENER, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS,

Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

H. Jeff McLeod, Anderson, South Carolina, for Appellant. Frank W.

Hunger, Assistant Attorney General, J. Preston Strom, Jr., United

States Attorney, Mary Ann Sloan, Acting Chief Counsel, Region IV,

Mack A. Davis, Acting Deputy Chief Counsel, Haila Naomi Kleinman, Supervisory Assistant Regional Counsel, John C. Stoner, Assistant Regional Counsel, Office of General Counsel, SOCIAL

SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Atlanta, Georgia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Donald L. Williams filed claims with the Social Security Administration for disability benefits and Supplemental Security Income on

November 23, 1983, and March 7, 1990, alleging disability periods

from May 2, 1982 to March 9, 1984, and from February 15, 1990,

respectively, as a result of back pain. After denial and reconsideration, Williams requested a hearing before an Administrative Law

Judge (ALJ). The ALJ heard the consolidated claims, determined that

Williams retained the functional capacity to perform past relevant

light and sedentary work, found Williams's subjective pain complaints to be incredible, and denied benefits.

In connection with Williams's request for review before the

Appeals Council, he submitted additional medical evidence from the

period after the date of the ALJ's decision. This medical evidence was

submitted in support of Williams's claim that he suffered from debilitating mental illness allegedly resulting, in part, from his back pain

and his experiences in the Gulf War. The Appeals Council denied

Williams's request for review, after consideration of the additional

evidence Williams submitted in support of his claim for benefits. The

ALJ's decision then became the Secretary's final decision.

Williams filed a complaint in the district court challenging the final

decision of the Secretary. The district judge accepted the recommendation of the magistrate judge, and affirmed the decision of the Secretary. This appeal followed.

We review the Secretary's final decision to determine whether it is

supported by substantial evidence and whether the correct law was

applied. 42 U.S.C.A. § 405(g) (West Supp. 1996); Hays v. Sullivan,

907 F.2d 1453, 1456 (4th Cir. 1990). Williams claims that the Secretary failed to give the proper weight to a treating psychologist's opin-

 2
ion that he was mentally disabled. He further claims that medical

evidence submitted to the Appeals Council after the hearing before

the ALJ affirms Williams's credibility as to his subjective complaints.

We find that the ALJ made a thorough evaluation of the evidence

before him, in compliance with regulatory standards and the applicable law. We further find that the Appeals Council thoroughly considered the additional evidence submitted to it and properly found that

the weight of all the evidence of record did not provide a basis for

changing the ALJ's determination that Williams failed to establish

that he was disabled during the relevant period under adjudication.

We conclude that the Secretary's decision is supported by substantial

evidence and was based on the correct legal standards.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment. We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

 3